South Africa Case Law

Martrade Shipping and Transport GmbH v United Enterprises Corporation and MV 'Unity' (1085/ 2019)

Martrade Shipping and Transport GmbH v United Enterprises Corporation and MV 'Unity' (1085/ 2019) [2020] ZASCA 120 (2 October 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1085/ 2019

Judges

Navsa, Makgoka, Schippers, Eksteen, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the proper interpretation of the order required reading paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 together. The 15-day period in paragraph 2.1 was intended to allow the parties to reach agreement on the form of security. If no agreement was reached, the registrar would determine the form, and a further 15 days (making 30 days in total) were available for compliance. The respondents' interpretation, which treated the 15-day period as the absolute deadline, was rejected as it did not accord with the grammatical structure or the manifest purpose of the order. The court emphasi…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Security For Costs
• Counter Security
• Arrest Of Vessel

Nadella Corporation v Mv Falcon Traveller and Another (A74/2015)

Nadella Corporation v Mv Falcon Traveller and Another (A74/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 90 (23 December 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A74/2015

Admiralty counter-security granted after an ex parte ship arrest, with the court finding a prima facie case and excessive security claimed by Nadella.

• Security Arrest
• Associated Ship
• Counter Security
• Indemnity Clause
• Excessive Security
• Jurisdiction

TMT Bulk Co Ltd v Bukers Laden Abroad (AC 26/2009)

TMT Bulk Co Ltd v Bukers Laden Abroad (AC 26/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 158; 2010 (3) SA 138 (WCC) (28 October 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC 26/2009

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the charterparty between Transfeld and BG, specifically clauses 33(d) and 37, constituted a contract of sale of the bunkers on board the MV Vogerunner at delivery and redelivery. The essential elements of a sale were present: identification of the bunkers, a stipulated price, and an undertaking to deliver. The deletion of the standard clause 3 was not material to the construction of the contract, as per the principle in Koulis. The court rejected TMT's argument that the use of 'value' rather than 'price' negated the existence of a sale. Commercial sense supported BG's con…

Source excerpt

• Arrest Of Bunkers
• Ownership Of Bunkers
• Contract Of Sale
• Counter Security
• Charterparty Interpretation

Progress Bulk Carriers Limited v Sylvia Shipping Company Limited and Another (AR 336/2007)

Progress Bulk Carriers Limited v Sylvia Shipping Company Limited and Another (AR 336/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 29; 2008 (5) SA 562 (N) (1 April 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

AR 336/2007

Judges

Levinsohn, Swain, Radebe

The court held that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for counter-security in an admiralty dispute and set aside the order.

• Counter Security
• Charterparty Interpretation
• Prima Facie Case
• Damages For Lost Sale
• Burden Of Proof
• Admiralty-law

United Enterprises Corporation and Another v STX Pan Ocean Company Limited (AC131/2006 , AC111/2006)

United Enterprises Corporation and Another v STX Pan Ocean Company Limited (AC131/2006 , AC111/2006) [2007] ZAWCHC 12; 2008 (1) SA 665 (C); [2007] 3 All SA 87 (C) (1 March 2007)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC131/2006 , AC111/2006

Judge

R B Cleaver

The High Court refused to set aside the arrest of MV Wisdom C and refused counter-security, holding that the Italian order was not res judicata and that no material non-disclosure was proved.

• Arrest Of Ship
• Counter Security
• Prima Facie Case
• Res Judicata
• Uberrima Fides
• Charterparty Dispute

"Merak S" (Name of Ship) Sea Melody Enterprises SA v Bulktrans (Europe) Corporation (178/2000)

"Merak S" (Name of Ship) Sea Melody Enterprises SA v Bulktrans (Europe) Corporation (178/2000) [2002] ZASCA 18; 2002 (4) SA 273 (SCA) (27 March 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

178/2000

Judges

Farlam, Hefer, Nienaber, Mpati, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant to secure the release of the vessel 'Merak S' from arrest constitutes 'security' within the meaning of section 5(2)(d) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The court found that maritime practice in South Africa and England treats such guarantees as equivalent to bail, and there is no reason to restrict the ordinary meaning of 'security' to exclude them. The court further held that its powers under section 5(2)(c)-(d) are sufficiently broad to allow for the reduction of security and the ordering of cou…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Security For Claims
• Counter Security
• Guarantee As Security