South Africa Case Law

Umhlaba Plant Hire CC v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others (10152/2015)

Umhlaba Plant Hire CC v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others (10152/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 161 (15 September 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10152/2015

Judge

R F Van Rooyen

The court ordered release of an attached bulldozer under NEMA on payment of R250,000 security, holding that section 34F(4) allowed a lesser amount on the facts.

• Release Of Attached Property
• Security For Release
• National Environmental Management Act
• Proportionality Of Security
• Forfeiture Of Instruments
• Criminal Procedure Act

Lauritzen Bulkers A/S v MV "Chenebourg", Maple Maritime Inc. v E.A.S.T. International Ltd and Others (KAC210/2009, A224/2009)

Lauritzen Bulkers A/S v MV "Chenebourg", Maple Maritime Inc. v E.A.S.T. International Ltd and Others (KAC210/2009, A224/2009) [2009] ZAKZDHC 73; 2011 (4) SA 467 (KZD) (26 November 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

KAC210/2009, A224/2009

Judge

Kruger

The High Court held that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act does not extend to associated-ship arrests. Both vessels were released.

• Associated Ship Arrest
• Demise Charter
• Statutory Interpretation
• Rem Action
• Security For Release
• Associated-ship-arrest

MV 'Ivory Tirupati' and Another v Badan Urusan Logistik (513/01)

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)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

513/01

Judges

Farlam, Hefer, Scott, Conradie, Jones

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

• Associated Ship Arrest
• Maritime Claim Definition
• Security For Release
• Foreign Judgment Enforcement
• Letter Of Undertaking

Inter Maritime Management SA v Companhia Portuguesa De Transportes Maritimos EP (369/88)

Inter Maritime Management SA v Companhia Portuguesa De Transportes Maritimos EP (369/88) [1990] ZASCA 112; 1990 (4) SA 850 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 623 (A) (27 September 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

369/88

Judges

Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nestadt, Kumleben, Friedman

The court held that a telex about winding up a deadlocked joint venture was not repudiation, but it increased damages for excessive security on cross-appeal.

• Repudiation Of Contract
• Joint Venture Liability
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Act
• Excessive Claims
• Security For Release
• Damages Quantification