Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
SOUTH AFRICAN MARITIME LAW
Craig Forrest *
287. Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd v V and A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd (The MV Jackie O) 1
Vessel under arrest—duties of Sheriff—duty to return vessel to berth upon release from arrest
The first respondent, V and A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“V and A”) arrested the MV Jackie O, also known as MV Kiara, owned by the applicant Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd (“Arrow”) for unpaid berthing and mooring fees from November 2020 to October 2022. The arrest warrant was executed by the second respondent, the sheriff of the High Court Cape Town East. V and A wished to utilise the existing berth but, as the vessel was under arrest and the sheriff had to find a jetty and berth to secure it, V and A made another berth available. Arrow paid for that berth for one month during the arrest, though refused to conclude a written contract for the lease of that berth. The Sheriff later inspected the motor vessel and, pursuant to his duties to preserve the vessel, requested all individuals on board to leave, though allowed Arrow’s engineer to have access and ensure that shore power to the vessel was restored.
For operational and safety reasons, V and A then requested that the sheriff have the vessel moved again to another berth. This the sheriff did, moving the vessel out of V and A’s berth to one in the Port of Cape Town. Having been informed of the move by the sheriff, Arrow objected to the move, but the sheriff responded that the move was guided by what was in the best interests of safeguarding the vessel and, acting within the scope of his duties, had the vessel moved.
The vessel was released from arrest in May 2024 but, in response to a court order, was arrested by the sheriff for a second time. Arrow argued that, upon the release of the vessel from arrest, it must be returned to the berth of the V and A where it had been at the time of the arrest. V and A responded that this was impossible, as the principal berth had partly been leased to a bona fide third party and the remaining part had to remain vacant for the routine handling of large vessels.
Arrow sought an application in the form of a rule nisi for an interim interdict to the effect that the sheriff return the vessel to the berth at which the vessel was arrested; that the sheriff then be interdicted and restrained from accessing and interfering with the vessel; that the sheriff be replaced by an ad hoc sheriff and be interdicted and restrained from
* Professor and Director of the Marine and Shipping Law Unit, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
1. (20 March 2025) Case no AC9/2023 (High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division). Application for leave to appeal refused (20 November 2025) Case no AC9/2023 (High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division).
South African Maritime Law
199