South Africa Case Law

World Net Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Donsantel 133 CC and Another (AR 350/2018)

World Net Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Donsantel 133 CC and Another (AR 350/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 78; [2020] 1 All SA 593 (KZP); 2020 (3) SA 542 (KZP) (29 November 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 350/2018

Judges

Lopes, Vahed, Olsen

The court held that magistrates’ courts have no jurisdiction to decide maritime claims once jurisdiction is challenged, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Maritime Claims
• Forum Selection
• Suretyship
• Access To Court

MV 'PrivGulf' v ING Bank N.V and Others (A72/2015)

MV 'PrivGulf' v ING Bank N.V and Others (A72/2015) [2016] ZAKZDHC 23 (20 July 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A72/2015

Judge

Koen

The court refused Sinopec’s joinder in an admiralty in rem action, but confirmed joinder of Great American Insurance Company because of competing payment claims.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Maritime Claims
• Action In Rem
• Assignment Of Claims
• Conversion
• Competing Jurisdictions

Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd and Another (3580/2013)

Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd and Another (3580/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 19 (23 May 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3580/2013

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court held that maritime claims already before a High Court may continue there in admiralty jurisdiction under section 7(2) of the AJRA.

• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Maritime Claims
• Transfer Of Actions
• Exception Procedure
• Costs Orders
• Admiralty-jurisdiction

Maree NO v Fund Constituted from the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV “Madagascar” and Other (A16/2006)

Maree NO v Fund Constituted from the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV “Madagascar” and Other (A16/2006) [2010] ZAKZDHC 6 (18 January 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A16/2006

Judge

Jappie

The court held that DeRuyter's payments to settle vessel creditors and crew wages constitute maritime claims under section 1(1)(o) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. Section 11(8) entitles any person who pays such claims to assert the rights and preferences of the original claimant, regardless of whether the payer is a shareholder or otherwise interested party. The court found no statutory bar preventing DeRuyter from relying on these provisions, and his motive for enhancing the value of the vessel does not preclude his entitlement. The factual disputes regarding the amounts and ra…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Maritime Claims
• Ranking Of Claims
• Distribution Of Fund
• Crew Wages
• Intervention Application

Serva Ship Limited v Discount Tonnage Limited (263/98)

Serva Ship Limited v Discount Tonnage Limited (263/98) [2000] ZASCA 169; [2000] 4 All SA 400 (A) (31 August 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

263/98

Judges

Harms, Hefer, Grosskopf, Olivier, Melunsky

The court held that time-charter rights are incorporeal and not attachable property where the vessel happens to be, so jurisdiction was not founded.

• Attachment To Found Jurisdiction
• Situs Of Incorporeal Rights
• Maritime Claims
• Peregrini Jurisdiction
• Admiralty-and-maritime
• Attachment-to-found-jurisdiction

Euromarine International of Mauren v The Ship Berg (349/84)

Euromarine International of Mauren v The Ship Berg (349/84) [1986] ZASCA 4; [1986] 2 All SA 169 (A) (27 February 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

349/84

Judges

Corbett, Miller, Hoexter, Grosskopf, Galgut

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, specifically sections 3(6), 3(7), and 5(3), are not purely procedural but create substantive rights and liabilities. The concept of 'associated ship' liability is a novel development that exposes ship owners to risks they did not face prior to the Act. There is no express or implied intention in the Act for these provisions to apply retrospectively to claims arising before its commencement. Retrospective application would prejudice ship owners who could not have anticipated such liab…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Associated Ship Liability
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Action In Rem
• Maritime Claims