Ti Ya Toivo Ltd and Others v MV Grey Fox and Others (AC20/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 144; 2025 (4) SA 607 (WCC) (27 March 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
AC 20/2024
Judge
Mantame
The High Court held that section 3(1) of COGSA gave it jurisdiction over a cargo claim, despite an exclusive Hamburg clause, and allowed the claim to proceed.
Glencore International AG v Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat As and Others (A42/2014) [2025] ZAKZDHC 4 (13 January 2025)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
A42/2014
Judge
Sibiya AJ
The High Court ordered Atakas to provide R1.2 million security for Glencore’s costs, stayed the action until compliance, and rejected any alleged agreement on the guarantee form.
Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV Smart and Another (573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129; [2025] 1 All SA 60 (SCA); 2025 (1) SA 392 (SCA) (1 October 2024)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
573/2023
Judges
Ponnan, Dambuza, Mocumie, Nicholls, Koen
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a peregrinus could be joined under s 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, but the joinder order was not appealable.
MV New Endeavor and Others v Indian Oil Corporation Limited (283/2023) [2024] ZASCA 67; 2024 (6) SA 64 (SCA) (3 May 2024)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
283/2023
Judges
Molemela, Mbatha, Meyer, Weiner, Seegobin
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the arrest of MV New Endeavor as an associated ship, finding Indian Oil proved common control on a balance of probabilities.
MV 'TARIK III' Credit Europe Bank N.V. v The Fund Comprising the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV Tarik III and Others (1294/2021) [2022] ZASCA 136; [2022] 4 All SA 621 (SCA) (13 October 2022)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1294/2021
Judges
Ponnan, Zondi, Gorven, Makaula, Chetty
The majority held that the appellant, as a stranger to the charterparty, failed to establish that the bareboat charter agreement had terminated prior to the judicial sale of the vessel. The direct evidence from Garanti and Caliskan, supported by conduct and registry records, indicated the charterparty remained extant at all material times. The onus to prove termination rested on the appellant, who did not discharge it. The court further held that claimants need not have arrested the vessel prior to its sale to lodge claims against the Fund under the deeming provision. The procedure for provin…
Van Niekerk v MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 152 (15 August 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
AC13/2018
Judge
Binns-Ward
The High Court refused the vessel owner leave to appeal, holding that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is jurisdictional and does not transfer ownership.
Van Niekerk v The MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 125 (17 June 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
AC13/2018
Judge
Binns-Ward
The court held that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act was enacted to allow vessels chartered by demise to be arrested in actions in rem for maritime claims against the charterer, but does not transfer ownership or proprietary rights to the charterer. The arrest of the vessel attaches the property of the real owner, not the charterer, and does not constitute an attachment or execution against the charterer's assets under section 359(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The charterer's rights under the charterparty are personal and not attached by the arrest. The proposed special…
Borne Logistics CC v Zvoimpex a.s and Another (A04/2022) [2022] ZAKZDHC 6 (14 February 2022)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
A04/2022
Judge
Ploos van Amstel
The court held that a restitution claim under CIF timber sale contracts was not a maritime claim, set aside the arrest of funds, and sent the matter to ordinary civil jurisdiction.
Credit Europe Bank N.V v Fund Comprising the proceeds of the sale of the MV Tarik III and Others (A 80/2014) [2021] ZAKZDHC 17 (6 May 2021)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
A 80/2014
Judge
Moodley
The court held that the Referee correctly found the demise charter was extant at the time of the judicial sale, based on direct evidence from Garanti and Caliskan and the Turkish Ship Registry. The deeming provision in section 1(3) of AJRA allows claimants to lodge claims against the fund without arresting the vessel, once the fund is constituted by judicial sale. The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving the demise charter was terminated prior to sale. Garanti, as owner, is precluded from claiming preservation costs from the fund, as only claimants with enforceable maritime claim…
