Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Borne Logistics CC v Zvoimpex a.s and Another (A04/2022) [2022] ZAKZDHC 6 (14 February 2022)
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.
Van Niekerk v MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 97; 2019 (6) SA 551 (WCC) (6 August 2019)
The court found that the plaintiff's loan agreement was directly linked to the design, construction, and equipment of the vessel, and the repayment was to be made from the vessel's earnings. This established a sufficient maritime connection under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The absence of a registered mortgage did not preclude the claim from being a maritime claim. The exception raised by the defendant was therefore dismissed, as the claim fell within the definition of a maritime claim and was properly brought before the admiralty court.
Source excerpt
Jacobs v Blue Water and Others (11755/2005) [2016] ZAWCHC 17 (1 March 2016)
The High Court held that a gangplank injury while disembarking from a ship was a maritime claim and had to proceed in admiralty jurisdiction.
Kuehne & Nagel Ltd v Moncada Energy Group SRL (40214/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 26 (19 February 2016)
The court held that the applicant's claims under the demand guarantees are 'maritime claims' as defined in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, because they relate to the remuneration of a forwarding agent and are legally connected to the underlying forwarding services agreements. The statutory language is broad and purposive, intending to confer admiralty jurisdiction over all claims with a legally relevant connection to maritime matters. As the South Gauteng High Court's area of jurisdiction is not adjacent to the territorial waters of the Republic, it is statutorily excluded from exe…
Source excerpt
LBH Mozambique Limitada v Fund Consisting of the Proceeds of the Sale of the Cargo of 4,904.78 Tons of Chromite Ore Concentrates Lately Laden on Board and Another (A16/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 32 (25 March 2015)
The court held that the claim by China Construction Bank Corporation does not qualify as a maritime claim under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The bank's claim, being for banking facilities granted to Metalmin for commodity trading, is not a maritime claim in its own right and cannot be elevated to such status merely by being lodged against the fund created by the sale of arrested property. Section 1(1)(x) of the Act does not extend admiralty jurisdiction to non-maritime claims against the fund; only claims that are maritime in substance may participate in the distribution. The st…
Source excerpt
Repo Wild CC v Oceanland Cargo Terminal (Pty) Ltd (23044/2010) [2013] ZAGPJHC 277 (14 November 2013)
The court held that a land-transport and insurance dispute over goods in a container was not a maritime claim, so the special plea failed.
MV 'Ivory Tirupati' and Another v Badan Urusan Logistik (513/01) [2002] ZASCA 155; [2003] 1 All SA 55 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 104 (SCA) (29 November 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim based on the Hong Kong judgment was not the same as the original cargo claim for which the 'Amer Prabha' was arrested. The judgment created a new and independent cause of action, requiring proof of additional facts such as the competence and conclusiveness of the foreign judgment. Therefore, the arrest of the first appellant was not precluded by sections 3(6) and 3(8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The letter of undertaking was construed as covering only the cargo claim and not the enforcement of the judgment. The respondent was e…
Source excerpt
Weissglass NO v Savonnerie Establishment (288/90) [1992] ZASCA 95; 1992 (3) SA 928 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 275 (A) (29 May 1992)
The court held that Savonnerie’s payments did not create maritime claims and set aside the attachment of two fishing vessels used to found jurisdiction.
Explore more
