South Africa Case Law

Matrix Yachts (Pty) Ltd v Mirage Catamaran (Pty) Ltd and Another (AC28/2017)

Matrix Yachts (Pty) Ltd v Mirage Catamaran (Pty) Ltd and Another (AC28/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 93 (12 September 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC28/2017

Judge

Y S Meer

The court found that no oral contract of sale was concluded between the parties, as there was no consensus on the purchase price or its determination. The applicant, Matrix Yachts, remained the owner and employer, with formal documents and operational control supporting its claim. Mark Wehrley was an employee, not owner, and his actions in commandeering the yacht and diverting income constituted unlawful deprivation of possession. The requirements for spoliation relief were met, entitling the applicant to restoration of possession and income. The applicant also established a prima facie right…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Ownership Of Vessel
• Interdict
• Oral Contract Of Sale
• Possession
• Maritime Liens

Nyathi Company Limited v St. Francis Marine CC (AC05/2006)

Nyathi Company Limited v St. Francis Marine CC (AC05/2006) [2006] ZAWCHC 68 (2 June 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC05/2006

Judge

D. Van Reenen

The High Court set aside the arrest of a catamaran, finding ownership had passed to the buyer after delivery and later conduct transformed the deal into credit sale.

• Ownership Of Vessel
• Passing Of Ownership
• Credit Sale Vs Cash Sale
• Security For Purchase Price
• Admiralty-law
• Vessel-arrest

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another (686/91)

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another (686/91) [1993] ZASCA 167; 1994 (1) SA 550 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 11 (A) (12 November 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

686/91

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Milne, Goldstone, Van den Heever

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, although wholly owned by the Government of India and subject to significant governmental control, remained a separate legal entity under South African law. The property of SCI could not be treated as property of the Government of India for the purposes of attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction under section 3(2)(b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The court found no grounds for piercing the corporate veil, as there was no evidence of fraud or improper conduct. The attachment procedure in question wa…

Source excerpt

• Attachment To Found Jurisdiction
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Ownership Of Vessel
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Sovereign Immunity