Unreported Cases

Updated:
17 March 2008

Recent & Unreported Court Decisions
Quick Summaries

GO TO JUDGMENTS:
Appeal Court || Cape || Durban || Inland Divisions

GO TO HEAD NOTES:
Appeal Court || Cape || Durban || Inland Divisions

These pages contain summaries of recent and particularly unreported decisions of the High Court of South Africa. Where cases have already been reported, the law report references are given.

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa site, hosted by the Law Faculty at the University of the Witwatersrand in Gauteng, provides (among other things) the full texts of Judgments, in chronological order since 1999.

The help of practitioners in letting us have faxed or e-mail texts of judgments as soon as they are handed down in your cases will make this feature of our site all the more useful to everyone.

By clicking on the vessel name, you will be taken to the text of the synopsis (if available).

NOTE:
Where indicated the full text of certain cases is available in .pdf format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, download it now, it's free!.

The Olympic Countess (per Scott JA, Farlam, Heher, Combrinck JJA et Hurt AJA -- Case No. 242/2006, Date of hearing 23 August 2007; Date of delivery 21 September 2007. Ranking of claims in terms of s 11 of Act 105 of 1983 -- s 11(4)(c)(v) does not include the claim of the person who pays the person who renders services to the ship. Full text here.

mv Roxana Bank [per Scott JA, Farlam JA, Nugent JA, Conradie JA and Cloete JA — Case No. 369/03, 2004 August 20, September 16] Swire Pacific Offshore Services (Pte) Ltd v MV Roxana Bank and another 2005 (2) SA 65 (SCA) — full text available in PDF format. Summary: Salvage — no closed list of categories of persons entitled to salvage aware — persons entitled to reward in respect of services rendered by a salving vessel not limited to the owner or demise charterer.

Merak S [Per Hefer AP, Nienaber, Farlam, Mpati JJA et Lewis AJA — Case No. 178/2000]
Bank guarantee furnished in order to release vessel from arrest is security for the purposes of section 5(2)(d) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 1983. Accordingly the court has jurisdiction to order that the security be reduced. It is within the court’s powers to order that the respondent give counter-security for the appellant’s claim against the respondent in arbitration proceedings in London. (— full text available in PDF format.)

The Heavy Metal #1
Judgement 31 May 1999, Case No: 323/98. Decision of the Cape High Court confirmed.
Shipping - It is not necessary for claimant to have available a currently existing action in rem against the guilty ship before associated ship provisions come into play - All which is required is that the owner or controller of the guilty ship at the time when the original claim arose is also the owner or controller of the arrested ship - For purposes of section 3(7)(a)(b)(ii) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction and Control Act 1983 either de jure or de facto control is sufficient -In terms of South African law, de jure control is exercised by the person controlling the shareholding of the company.
[See also the decision of Comrie J re security in The Heavy Metal #2]

The Cape Spirit [9 June 1999]
Shipping — Security furnished for the release of a ship must be returned in terms of section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 if no further steps in the proceedings are taken within one year of the date of the giving of the security, irrespective of whether the security was given before or after the arrest of the ship — If the security is to be returned, the corresponding action lapses in terms of section 1(2)(b)(iv) of the Act.

The Silvergate: (Peviously mv "Astanax") [24 May 1999]
Shipping - Whether litigant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a dispute in a foreign court —what constitutes a full and final decision in the foreign court —Ownership of the vessel res judicata as a consequence of the foreign decision — Terms of a letter of undertaking to secure the release of the vessel in California precluded appellant from pursuing the proceedings in the court a quo.

The Yu Long Shan : [29 September 1997]
Arbitration awards and the retrospectivity of the amended associated ship provisions — arbitration award cannot be regarded as an entirely separate and independent cause of action; charterparty and the original breach of it all part of the cause of action based on the award and, therefore, held that the amended associated ship provisions did not apply
Leave to appeal the judgment was requested and granted.
[Now reported in 1997(2) SA 454 (D)
Confirmed on appeal in 1998 (1) SA 646 (SCA)
The High Court of Appeal disagreed with the reasoning of the Durban High Court but still dismissed the appeal. It stressed what it referred to as the "entirely derivative" nature of an arbitration award in the sense that it owes its existence entirely to the antecedent cause of action and, finding that the critical question was whether the legislature intended a claimant to rely on the amended associated ship provisions for such a cause of action, held that, as their were no indications in the Admiralty Act that there was such an intention, held that there was no such intention.
[Rapporteur: Messrs Garlicke & Bousfield]

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE and
SOUTH EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENTS
_{________________________________________________}

The MT "Fotiy Krylov"
[per Davis J. — Case No. 181/06 (Reportable)
Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Judgment: 112 February 2008
Full text available.

The mv "Snow Crystal"
[per Davis J. — Case No. AC36/2003 (Reportable)]
Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Judgment: 9 November 2006
Full text available

The mv "Wisdom C"
[per Cleaver J — Case No. AC131/2006 related to Case No. 111/2006]
Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Judgment: 1 March 2007
Full text available

The mv Mega S
[per Cleaver J — Cases AC156/2002 and AC58/2002]
Cape Provincial Division
Judgment: 12 June 2003
Full text available

mv Sagittarius
[Case No. AC128/2002 Related to AC 121/2002]
Cape of Good Hope Division
per: Davis J
Judgment: 15 November 2002
Summary to follow
Full text available (in PDF format)

mv Fortune 22
[Case No.Case No AC49/98 Related to AC 145/97]
Cape of Good Hope Division)
per: Thring J:
Judgment: 9 June 1998
Associated ship arrest in terms of sec. 3(6) & 3(7). Held that two actions in rem for the same claim could not be sustained even if security not sufficient after first arrest.

'Millennium Amanda'
[Case No. 1878/01
South Eastern Cape Division
per Kroon J 28/3/2002]

Liberty Life Association of SA
[Case No. 2447/2000 - Reportable]
per: VAN REENEN et JALI JJ
Judgment: 12 April 2001
Legality of bringing review proceedings in the Cape Town High Court when appeal proceedings already launched in Labour Appeal Court. Respondents argued High court not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the applicant’s right of review had been pre-empted by the noting of the appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. Held High Court has jurisdiction to entertain matter and right of respondents not pre-empted.

The m.v. Kalamos
[Case No. AC 156/98 1 October 1999 per Thring J]
Application in terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act No. 105 of 1983 ("the Act") — Effect of order in terms of Rule 3(5)(e) of the Admiralty Proceedings Rules — Construction of letter of undertaking
A decision by Thring J dealing with the securing of an admiralty claim by means of a Club letter. The judgement acknowledges the effect of sec 3(10)(a)(ii) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act which requires an arrest which is deemed to have taken place by the giving of security, to have 'further steps' taken within one year, failing which the deemed arrest shall fall away. It deals then with a subsequent attachment of the same vessel in the same claim during a later call within the jurisdiction.
[Full text available in PDF format — download Acrobat Reader if required.]

The Yung Chun No. 17 (summary)
[Case No. AC 30/97 1 September 2000 per Davis J]
Pilotage, Compulsory Pilotage Harbour, Pilot Error, Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, Section 10(7), Exemption from Liability.
Whether exemption excluded liability for acts of gross negligence, distinction between negligence and gross negligence.
Application to recall Witnesses, circumstances in which court will allow recall of witnesses.
[Full text available in PDF format — download Acrobat Reader if required.]

The mv "Akkerman" [Case No. AC 155/98]
Security associated ship, security for costs being final order not variable by court of first instance, extension of time limits in respect of orders [rule 19(1)]
Counter-security, requirements for.
[Full text available in PDF format — download Acrobat Reader if required.]

The Ais Mamas [Case Number AC17/2000]
Application in terms of Section 5(5)(a)(i) and S5(5)(a)(iv) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the Act);— Charterparty, breach of — Security Arrest.

The Peregrine III
Per Davis J, Cape Town, 15 July 1999
Shipping — Application to set aside arrest of vessel arrested to provide security in terms of section 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act — Dispute over how much security for costs is required — Court must accept computation of costs calculated by the Respondent unless it does not provide a clear and rational justification for its version of the quantum — Issue of the financial status of the Respondent is not a matter which should significantly alter the conclusion to an inquiry based upon the ordinary principles to whether a genuine and reasonable need for security for a claim has been shown.

The Peregrine IV
Per Davis J, Cape Town, 12 May 1999
Davis J confirmed the arrest of the drillship Peregrine IV against an argument that the arrestor was adequately secured by having an alleged possessory lien over sister ships alongside in the plaintiff's shipyard, and by the fact that the defendant owned a number of ships, and was a multi-national USA based company. Davis J dismissed the contention that an arrest for security in terms of s 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is only available against an impecunious debtor defendant, finding that the applicant nevertheless had a genuine and reasonable need for security as required by s 5(3).
Reasons are to follow, and will be posted to this site.

The Heavy Metal #2
Per Comrie J, Cape Town, 7 May 1999, Case No AC 74/98
Shipping — Application for counter-security following arrest in terms of S(5)(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 1983 — For a counter-security order the Applicant must show that it has a prima facie claim as well as a genuine and reasonable need for security — Decision in the discretion of the court — Applicant unable to show that the Respondent had demanded excessive security or that the order for arrest was obtained without reasonable or probable cause and therefore unable to show that it has a prima facie claim.
[Website note: Cf.The Appeal Court's judgement on control in relation to associated ships in The Heavy Metal #1]

The Rizcun Trader #3
Per Knoll AJ, Cape Town, 26 April 1999, Case No: AC171/98
Shipping — Interlocutory application for an order compelling Respondent to give discovery in terms of Rule 35(2) pending the Respondent's action for the setting aside of the arrest. No exceptional facts were found present which would justify an order for discovery before the opposing party have yet filed papers. Discovery at this stage of the proceedings amounted to a fishing expedition. To grant discovery would come perilously close to effectively reversing the onus which remains on the arrestor.

The Rizcun Trader #2
[Per Knoll AJ, 26 April 1999, Case No: AC146/98]
Shipping - Interlocutory application for security for costs in opposing application to have arrest of vessel set aside -Operation of s 5(2)(b) and (c) and s 5(3) of Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 — s 5(2)(b) gives power to order the person causing an application to be brought to provide security — Power to order provision of security for costs in terms of s 5(2)(b) a discretionary power and common law considerations of fairness and justice should be taken into account — A court would be slow to order security for costs to be provided by a shipowner who stands to the defence of a vessel.

The Limb
[Per Donen AJ, 13 March 1999, Case No AC45/99]
Shipping — Whether Sheriff has locus standi to pursue a claim for damages in respect of collision damages caused to a ship under attachment — Powers vested in sheriff pursuant to Admiralty Rule 21(1), and in terms of the order ordering sale in execution does not allow for authorisation to litigate — No evidence of any remaining creditors of the vessel except the applicant or evidence that the applicant's claim will not be satisfied by the sale of the vessel
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]

The Urgup
Case No: AC 63/98 per Thring J, 4 February 1999
Shipping — Discovery — an interesting analysis of the entitlement of parties to early discovery of documents in application proceedings. In denying claimants who were burdened with the onus of proving an association of ships the opportunity of embarking on a fishing expedition for non-specified documentation relating to transactions which would support their contentions of an association, Judge Thring confirmed the general practice of allowing discovery in applications only in exceptional circumstances. Discovery was sought at the instance of a person claiming no proprietary interest or ownership in the property (documents) - Preservation of existing evidence which may become relevant - Court's approach should be similar to that in Anton Pillar orders - Provisions of Admiralty Rule 25 not applicable - Courts reluctant to order discovery in motion proceedings, especially before respondent had delivered his opposing affidavits and in absence of exceptional circumstances - Provisions of Uniform Rules 35(3) and (14), in the alternative, also not of application - Granting an order in terms thereof would be tantamount to compelling respondents to answer to an interrogatory, which is not the purpose of the sub-rules.
The Owners of the mv Urgup v Western Bulk Carriers (Australia) (Pty) Ltd and Others

The Rizcun Trader #1
Per Conradie J, Cape Town 11 December 1998.
Case No: AC146/98 & AC59/98
Shipping — Interlocutory application for security for application setting aside arrest — Respondent contends that obligation to furnish security conditional on applicant furnishing security for its costs in present and main application — Respondent’s obligation to provide security arises from operation of law and not conditional on applicant furnishing security — Application should not be delayed by respondent’s insistence on being accomodated.
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]

The Snow Delta
1998 (3) SA 636 (C) per Thring J.
Shipping — attachment of an NYPE time charterer's rights arising out of a charterparty allowed ad fundandam jurisdictionem. The Cape High court found that the charterer's rights reposed both where the debtor (here the sharterer) resides, and where the vessel covered by a time charterparty is situated. As incorporeal rights are, in SA law, attachable to found the jurisdiction of the court against a peregrine defendant in Admiiralty, the time charterer's rights could be so attached, even in an action unrelated to the charterparty.
The fact that the vessel had already left the jurisdiction of the court by the return day of a rule nisi application, did not remove the jurisdiction of the court, which persisted until the end of the claimant's action.

The Recife
[Now reported as 1997 (4) SA 852 (C) per Fitzgerald AJ]
Carriage of goods by sea — dangerous goods - liability of the shipper for inflammable/dangerous goods shipped without consent and actual knowledge of nature and character of goods of carrier. Carrier's indemnity.
This interesting decision of the Cape Court is the first in SA to have dealt with dangerous cargo and the IMO Dangerous Goods Code vis-a-vis Art IV rule 6 of the SA COGSA. The court distinguished the English decisions of The Athanasia Comninos and The Amphion and found as a matter of fact that no fault could be imputed to the carrier who was entitled to rely upon his immunities.

The Tigr
[Now reported in 1998 (3) SA 206 (C) per King JP.]
Sale pendite lite-Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, s 9(1) — Discretion to order sale in s 9(1) —Court will not exercise its discretion unless there is a good reason to do so.

The Ocean King #1 [6 Dec 1996 per King JP]
Provision of security for additional preservation costs — Court has a discretion whether to order, which will be exercised with regard considerations of fairness and security.

The Ocean King #2 [11 Dec 1996 per King JP]
Rule 19(1) — Sheriff has a right together with a correlative duty to take custody of the vessel and to preserve it- What activities fall within the scope of rule 19(1).
[Now reported in 1997 (4) SA 349 (C)]

The Sea Joy [7 August 1997 per Thring J.]
Hague-Visby Rules: Carrier found liable to shipper for damage to goods notwithstanding FIOS clausing (quaere whether such clausing would per se contravene Art III Rule 8); Carrier's duty "properly and carefully to load, stow etc"
Calculation of interest in admiralty - court's discretion
[Now reported in 1998 (1) SA 487 (C)]

The Tigr #4 [Case No AC10/1995]
Forum non conveniens — factors affecting — Towcon exclusive jurisdiction per Himalaya Clause. Not available to tug-owner defendant per The Mahkutai — judicial advantage in choosing more favourable limitation regime legitimate and not opprobrious — Cape Town natural and convenient forum experienced in practise and application of English Law.
[Now reported in 1998 (4) SA 740 (C)]

mv "Afris Pioneer" per Levinsohn J
Case No. AR 289/2002
Judgment Delivered: 9 May 2003
Full text available in PDF format
Head Note: Contract - oral agreement - actionable non-disclosure - duty to disclose - negligence - not established - appeal dismissed with costs.

mv "The Wisdom" per Nicholson J.
Case No. A210/02
Judgment: Headnote and Summary to follow
Full Text available in PDF format (5 files)
(see also Summary mv "Wisdom" [per McCall J, Case No. A39/2002])

mv "Wisdom" per McCall J.
Case No. A39/2002
Judgment: Summary available
Full text to follow

mv "Evelyn" per: Hugo J
Judgment delivered: 30 May 2001 (date of hearing 28 May 2001)
Summary (full text to follow)
Headnote: Ex parte application for a two-year extension in terms of sec. 5(2)(d)(A) of Act 105 of 1983 for an issued summons aimed at two associated vessels. Prejudice to the associated vessels, and likelihood of associated vessels calling at ports of jurisdiction of the court, considered. Extension granted.

mv "Able Monarch" [Unreported Case Nos. A249/2001; A254/2002; A255/2001]
per: Gyanda J
Judgment: 19 November 2001
Summary (full judgment to follow)

mv "ALS Express" [Case No. A55/2001]
per: Combrinck J
Judgment: 11 July 2002
Summary (full text
HEADNOTE: Allegedly associated vessel arrested for the purposes of enforcing an action in rem for the remainder of an unpaid purchase price. Issue whether, at the time of the commencement of the action, the arrested vessel and the vessel against which the claim lay were owned by a company which was owned or controlled by the same entity in terms of section 3(7)(a)(ii) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983. Held that onus not discharged by plaintiff but no costs awarded due to court finding defendant's behaviour not to have been satisfactory.

mv "Co-Prosperity" [Case No. A196/98]
per: Moerane AJ
Judgment: 6 July 2001
(full text available)

mv “Fayrouz IV” [Case Citation 1998 (4) SA 675]
Shearer J, Page J and Booysen J
Date delivered: 1987 December 8, 17
Whether associated ship arrest was only available when an action in personam lay at that moment in time against the owner or property to have been arrested. Held that s3(6) & 3(7) extended the circumstances under which arrests could be made to allow the arresting party an alternative method of enforcing the claim in personam by an arrest of another ship instead of the guilty ship. Held that liability is that of the legal entity against which the claim lies and not against the vessel itself.

mv 'Mbashi' [Case No. A284/97; AA66/98; Citation 2002 JDR 0012(D)]
per: LEVINSOHN J
Judgment: 6 December 2001

mv Delta Peace [Case No. 224/97 Reportable]
per: COMBRINK J.
Judgment: 10 April 2001
Sheriff's 'reasonable remuneration' under Rule 21(3) held to be objectively assessed according to the facts of the case. Remuneration not set by tariff but discretionary and held to be justifiable if proven. Administrative work done by office manager and deputy sheriff may be charged out at the same rate as work done by the sheriff as the work is part of the larger task of preserving the vessel.

mv Bunga Mas Tiga [Case No. A104/98]
Hearing
Judgment: 26/09/2001
THERON J:
Question whether the Himalaya clause is applicable to a party twice removed from a party to the contract. Held that the facts did not meet the requirements for situplatio alteri, nor the 3 requirements laid down in Santam Insurance Co v South Africa Stevedores Ltd 1989 (1) SA 182 (D).

mv Merak S [Case No. 72/99]
Hearing: 20/09/99
Judgement: 25/02/2000
NILES-DUNER J:
Security Arrest — in terms of S 5 (3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, 105 of 1983, for claims to be brought in arbitration proceedings in London — Guarantee — what constitutes “security” in terms of the Act — Application for counter-security in terms of S 5 (2) (b) & (c).
(overturned on appeal — full text available.)

mv Stella Tingas [Case No. A.224/97]
per Booysen, J. (delivered: 7 May 2001)
Determination of lack of negligence on the part of the master, crew and officers of the m.v. Atlantica colliding into the m.v. Stella Tingas. Gross negligence found on the part of the pilot of the Atlantica and employer, Transnet held vicariously liable therefore. Owner of vessel Atlantica not held liable for act of pilot due to the application of Section 35 of the United Kingdom Pilotage Act of 1983 introduced through Section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, No. 105 which absolves owner of vessel from liability for actions of the pilot under compulsory pilotage.
(full text available in .pdf format)

The Ya Mawlaya [Appeal Case No. 598/97]
18 February 1999 per Magid J, Page J and Combrink J concurring.
(Full text available as PDF file.
Arrest of associated vessel as security for pending claim in London contemplated. Held that association not proven in founding papers and arresting party’s averments regarding association in replying papers not allowed by court. Court stating that arresting party must stand or fall by founding papers in arrest application as opposed to dictum in "Andrico Unity" interpreted to be applicable to applications for the release of vessels from arrest only.

m.f.v. Dubysa and m.f.v. Daugai [Case No. A64/98 and A65/98]
30 March 2000 per P.C. Combrink J
Sale of vessels, application for rescission of order on basis that respondents not owners. Question whether applicant had maritime lien against owner of vessel in respect of section 11(8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, 105 of 1983 (as amended). Issue considered but not decided.
(Full text available as PDF file — Adobe Acrobat Reader required. See download availability above.)

The Alam Tenggiri [Case no A243/98]
Security Arrest - Associated Ship — requirements for an arrest in terms of Section 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act — guarantee — what kind of security is acceptable — can party refuse security in a specified form — whether court will exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues relating to security where guarantee not given to registrar and where there is a foreign choice of law clause.
[Rapporteur: E. Greiner]
(Full text available : Judgment on appeal — PDF format.)

The Mineral Ordaz [Case No. A111/98]
Shipping — A settlement agreement settling an arbitration based on a charter party extinguishes the original claim but the underlying nature of the claim remains the same — claim based on the settlement agreement remains within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]

The Agulhas [Case No. AR198/98 11 May 1999]
Shipping — Pure Economic Loss — Admiraltry action in rem — Application to set aside deemed arrest or alternatively for court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction — Pure economic loss not applicable in English law and probably not applicable in Nigerian law — Either English law or Nigerian law should be applied — Therefore the action would fail in either case and accordingly dismissed — Judge would in any event have declined to exercise jurisdiction in terms of S7(1)(a) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
[Rapporteur Roger Marshall]

The Kadirga 5 [Appeal Case No. AR115/98
D&CLD Case No. A143/96]
Shipping — Appeal from single bench — Determination of whether three ships, each owned by a foreign company, were associated ships of the debtor vessel — Evidence on the papers indicated that the ships were engaged in a common enterprise and controlled by the same person — matter referred to oral evidence
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]

The Arena [Case Number: A179/98]
Shipping — a voyage charterer has no right to or interest in the use and employment of the Vessel — Only personal rights flow from the charterparty — The vessel cannot be attached to satisfy a debt owed by the Respondent (the charterer) to the applicant.
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]

The Yu Long Shan [Case No 235/95 Reported 1997 (3) SA 629 (Upheld on appeal)]
Arrest of defendant vessel for enforcement of arbitration award against guilty vessel. Dispute regarding time charterparty arising prior to 1992 Amendment of Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 and arbitration award given thereafter. Held: arbitration award not new cause of action but merely a means of pursuing a claim. Confirmed 1992 amendments not operate retrospectively. Old Act only allowing deeming provision of s3(7) to operate when charterer is charterer by demise. Held: particulars of claim had not proven association.

The Nantai Prince [28 Aug 1996]
Forum Shopping — Jurisdiction — Declining of jurisdiction in terms of s 7(1)(a) of the Admiralty jurisdiction Regulation Act

The Rose [8 May 1996]
Application for the attachment of a second ship in respect of a maritime claim for which satisfactory security had already been provided — provisions of s 3 (8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983

The Lady Muriel [21 Nov 1995 per McClaren J.]
Sale of vessel in terms of s 9 of the A admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act — Competing claims to conduct the sale of the vessel — Appointment of private Auctioneer to conduct the judicial sale of the vessel

The Ya Rab: Endiana Spa (formerly Cereol Italia Srl) Judgment 14 April 1997.
Associated ship: allegations of common ownership or control which are denied but in respect of which no evidence is led to support that denial may be sufficient to establish the necessary association.

Status Maritime v Hyundai [Case No:23601/97 — Witwatersrand Division, 20 February 1999]
Admiralty jurisdiction — Operation of Section 7(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1983 — Question of whether a matter is a maritime matter (and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court) can be raised after litis contestatio has been reached — Once it is decided that it is a maritime matter the jurisdiction of a competent court is ousted and the matter must proceed in a court with admiralty jurisdiction — Parties cannot consent to the jurisdiction of a court which does not have admiralty jurisdiction in terms of the Act
[Rapporteur Roger Wallace]