South Africa Case Law

Seaspan Holdco I Ltd and Others v MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG and Another (A69/2016; A70/2016)

Seaspan Holdco I Ltd and Others v MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG and Another (A69/2016; A70/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 3; [2018] 2 All SA 551 (KZD); 2018 (5) SA 284 (KZD) (26 February 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A69/2016; A70/2016

Judge

Gyanda

The court held that the relevant time for determining ownership or control of an associated ship for arrest purposes under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is the time the protective writ is issued, not the time of arrest. The decision in 'Monica S' remains binding law in South Africa, as the Act and subsequent amendments did not alter this position. The arrest of a vessel after an arm's length sale to a third party is not unconstitutional or an arbitrary deprivation of property, as the practice is recognized internationally and mitigated by contractual indemnities and insurance. The…

Source excerpt

• Associated Ship Arrest
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Change Of Ownership
• Maritime Liens
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Protective Writs

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Norton and Another (464/13)

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Norton and Another (464/13) [2014] ZASCA 94 (26 June 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

464/13

Judges

Navsa, Lewis, Shongwe, Hancke, Mocumie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Eskom could not rely on a transfer clause to avoid cancellation of a servitude where it knew the new owner and failed to pay rental.

• Servitude Cancellation
• Interpretation Of Deed
• Notice Requirements
• Change Of Ownership
• Servitude-cancellation
• Deed-interpretation

Absa Bank Limited v Mykatrade 361 CC t/a CMC Boksburg (46917/2010)

Absa Bank Limited v Mykatrade 361 CC t/a CMC Boksburg (46917/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 251 (9 December 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46917/2010

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court found that the applicant had proved ownership of the vehicles by virtue of the floorplan and agency agreements with CMC East London and payment to CCE Holdings. Delivery to CMC East London was on behalf of the applicant, and the applicant obtained physical possession pursuant to a court order. The respondent failed to establish that CCE Holdings or CMC East London intended to transfer ownership to it, nor did it prove derivative acquisition of ownership. Possession of eNatis documents and registration as dealer stock did not confer ownership, especially given the respondent's knowle…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Moveable Property
• Floorplan Agreement
• Derivative Acquisition
• Delivery Of Documents
• Change Of Ownership
• Estoppel