South Africa Case Law

Ti Ya Toivo Ltd and Others v MV Grey Fox and Others (AC20/2024)

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.

• Carriage Of Goods By Sea Act
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Joinder Of Parties
• Bill Of Lading Interpretation
• Admiralty-jurisdiction

Fleet Africa (Pty) Limited v Polokwane Local Municipality (720/2022)

Fleet Africa (Pty) Limited v Polokwane Local Municipality (720/2022) [2023] ZASCA 142 (30 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

720/2022

Judges

Saldulker, Hughes, Matojane, Keightley, Siwendu

The SCA held that the Limpopo High Court had jurisdiction, the SLA was binding, and the Municipality’s arbitration defences based on tender irregularity lacked merit.

• Contractual Jurisdiction
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Arbitration Proceedings
• Pacta Sunt Servanda
• Estoppel

East Asian Consortium, B. V. v MTN Group Limited and Others (2013/44462)

East Asian Consortium, B. V. v MTN Group Limited and Others (2013/44462) [2022] ZAGPJHC 969; [2023] 1 All SA 632 (GJ); 2023 (3) SA 77 (GJ) (30 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/44462

Judge

Wepener

The court held that Iranian law applies to the delictual claim, as the alleged wrongful conduct and resulting loss occurred in Iran. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Iranian tender regulations binds EAC to litigate in Iran, and no strong cause was shown to avoid this contractual obligation. The foreign act of state doctrine and state immunity preclude South African courts from adjudicating the lawfulness of acts performed by the Iranian government within its territory, as the claim would require adverse findings against Iran. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed E…

Source excerpt

• Choice Of Law
• State Immunity
• Act Of State Doctrine
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Unlawful Interference With Contractual Rights
• International Tender Dispute

Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited v ZCCM Investment Holdings PLC and Another (2019/23462)

Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited v ZCCM Investment Holdings PLC and Another (2019/23462) [2019] ZAGPJHC 250 (23 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/23462

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the disputes underlying the Zambian winding-up proceedings are arbitrable under the shareholders' agreement, which contains a broadly worded arbitration clause covering any dispute relating to the agreement. Johannesburg was chosen as the seat of arbitration, conferring exclusive supervisory jurisdiction on the South African court. The court held that the doctrine of effectiveness is no longer a strict barrier to jurisdiction where there is a sufficient link, such as the seat of arbitration. The plea of lis pendens was rejected because, although parallel proceedings exist…

Source excerpt

• International Arbitration
• Shareholders Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Lis Pendens
• Anti Suit Injunction

Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd v Capewinds Trading 33 CC (A45/2012)

Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd v Capewinds Trading 33 CC (A45/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 50 (26 September 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A45/2012

Judge

Thatcher AJ

The High Court held that a letter of undertaking counted as security against attachment, but still declined admiralty jurisdiction because Singapore was the agreed forum.

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Letter Of Undertaking
• Deemed Attachment
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Admiralty-jurisdiction

Cordustex Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Building Product Design Ltd (1792/2012)

Cordustex Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Building Product Design Ltd (1792/2012) [2012] ZAECPEHC 47 (3 August 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1792/2012

Judge

E Revelas

The High Court confirmed an attachment order to found jurisdiction, holding that an English exclusive jurisdiction clause did not bar the remedy.

• Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Ex Parte Application
• Contractual Ouster Clause
• Attachment-to-found-jurisdiction
• Exclusive-jurisdiction-clause

MT "Fotiy Krylov" v Owners of the MT "Ruby Deliverer" (181/06)

MT "Fotiy Krylov" v Owners of the MT "Ruby Deliverer" (181/06) [2008] ZAWCHC 3; 2008 (5) SA 434 (C); (12 February 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

181/06

Judge

Davis

The High Court set aside the deemed arrest of MT Fotiy Krylov, holding the respondent had not shown a prima facie maritime lien claim against the vessel.

• Damage Maritime Lien
• Associated Ship Arrest
• Himalaya Clause
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Time Bar
• Contractual Exemption

Society of Lloyds v Price ; Society of Lloyd's v Lee' (327/05)

Society of Lloyds v Price ; Society of Lloyd's v Lee' (327/05) [2006] ZASCA 88; 2006 (5) SA 393 (SCA) (1 June 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

327/05

Judges

Howie, Scott, Zulman, Van Heerden, Cachalia

The court held that English law governed prescription, the English court had jurisdiction, and the English default judgments were enforceable in South Africa.

• Conflict Of Laws
• Prescription
• Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Public Policy
• Provisional Sentence

Laden and Another v MV "Dimitris" (534/1987)

Laden and Another v MV "Dimitris" (534/1987) [1989] ZASCA 76; [1989] 2 All SA 436 (A) (1 June 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

534/1987

Judges

Botha, Corbett, Hefer, Kumleben, Grosskopf

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants had established a prima facie cause of action against Astromando in both contract and delict, and that their claims were enforceable in the courts of South Yemen. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Yemeni courts would not exercise jurisdiction or would not afford a fair trial. The court found that hearsay evidence regarding the cause of the fire was admissible under section 6(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and carried sufficient weight to support the appellants' case. The court further held that…

Source excerpt

• Associated Ship Arrest
• Security Arrest
• Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
• Hearsay Evidence In Admiralty
• Onus Of Proof