• "Status Maritime (Pty) Ltd" [Case No: 23601/97, Witwatersrand Local Division, 20 February 1999]

Please help us to build this database by letting us have copies of admiralty judgements as soon as they are handed down!

Case No: 23601/97

In the matter between STATUS MARITIME (PTY) LTD (Plaintiff)
and
HYUNDAI MOTOR DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD (Defendent)
Judgement delivered on 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 ouside 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.

Hearing to determine issues raised in a Special Plea and the Replication. The Defendent in the action delivered its Plea, pleading on the merits but failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction. At a later date the defendent filed a notice of intention to ammend its Plea and include the Special Plea contesting the courts jurisdiction on the basis that the matter was one falling under the definition of "maritime claim" as defined in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Act No 105 of 1983 and therefore only a court which could exercise Admiralty jurisdiction under the Act could adjudicate the matter. The Plaintiff objected to the amendment on the basis that the Defendent had consented to the jurisdiction by filing a plea to the merits. An application to amend and include the Special Plea was then launched and was granted. On that occation the court declared that the issues raised concerning jurisdiction should be properly determined by the trial court.

Held, that in terms of section 7(2) of the Act, the question of admiralty jurisdiction must be decided "when the matter arises". From the wording of the Act, it is clearly envisaged that a matter already proceeding before a court may be halted or interupted by the question of jurisdiction arising, i.e. after litus contestatio has been reached. In other words the usual common law rule in this regard is modified by the Act and the legislature clearly intended to created a statutory oportunity for the question to arise or be raised after close of pleadings.
Held, that it was clear from section 7(2) of the Act that once the question arises as to whether a matter pending or proceeding before a court is one relating to a maritime claim, the court is obliged to forthwith decide that question. Once the question is determined to be maritime, the jurisdiction of a court without admiralty jurisdiction is ousted.
Held, that notwithstanding the above, the court has a discretion and may decide that the question of jurisdiction has been raised at such a late stage that it should not allow the jurisdiction of the ordinary court to be attacked. In the present case however, the Special Plea has already been allowed to be incorporated into the Plea and the situation is brought about where the Defendent has in fact raised the question in its Plea and it therefore falls to be decided under section 7(2).
Held, the, since the parties agree that the matter is a "maritime claim" the matter should proceed in a court competent to exercise admiralty jurisdiction. (The Witwatersrand Local Division does not have admiralty jurisdiction in relation to the merits of this matter as it is not adjacent to the territorial waters of the Republic.) It was clear from the wording of the Act that the matter should not simply be dismissed as was contended by the Defendent.

Special Plea upheld, matter to be proceeded with in the Durban and Coast Local Division.