Owner of the MV “Maritime Prosperity” v Owner of the MV “Lash Atlantico” - Appellate Division (Corbett CJ, Smalberger, Nestadt and Marais JJA and Scott AJA) - 1996 (1) SA 22

Limitation period - Whether provisions of section 344 Merchant Shipping Act 57 of 1951 inconsistent with Prescription Act 68 of 1969 - Whether arrest of vessel to provide security for counterclaim time-barred under former Act or whether saved by provisions of latter Act

On 16 October and 28 October 1990 vessels belonging to the appellant and the respondent collided with each other off Port Said. On 14 October 1992 the appellant obtained an order for the arrest of the respondent’s vessel in an action for damages caused by the collision. The arrest was effected on 10 November 1992. On 20 August 1993 the respondent obtained an order for the arrest of the appellant’s vessel as security for the claim-in-reconvention which the respondent intended to file in the action instituted by the appellant on 14 October 1992 and in which the respondent proposed to counterclaim for damages in respect of damage to its vessel. It was common ground that the respondent’s contemplated claim-in-reconvention would constitute a proceeding in personam .