South Africa Case Law

Kuwiba Shipping Hong Kong Ltd v Prima Shipping Company Ltd and Another (AC47/2010)

Kuwiba Shipping Hong Kong Ltd v Prima Shipping Company Ltd and Another (AC47/2010) [2013] ZAWCHC 17 (28 January 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC47/2010

Judge

Gamble

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside the arrest of bunkers on MV Alina II, finding Prima’s ownership denial unsupported and the alternative charter story unreliable.

• Ownership Of Bunkers
• Charterparty Interpretation
• Admiralty Arrest
• Disponent Owner Liability
• Double Taxation
• Security For Claim

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

Cobam NV v Aegean Petroleum (UK) Ltd and Another (29/94)

Cobam NV v Aegean Petroleum (UK) Ltd and Another (29/94) [1995] ZASCA 101 (19 September 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

29/94

Judges

Corbett, Hefer, Nestadt, Olivier, Scott

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 32 of the charter-party, which provides for the transfer and accounting of bunkers upon redelivery, applies only to redelivery at the natural termination of the charter-party by effluxion of time and not to early termination by breach. The limited quantities specified in clause 32 support this interpretation, as it would be unreasonable to expect the bunkers on board at the time of breach to match those quantities. The court found no basis for implying a term into the contract that would transfer ownership of the bunkers to Cobam upon withdrawal of…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Bunkers
• Implied Terms In Charterparty
• Tacit Agreement
• Termination Of Charterparty
• English Law Application