IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
NAME OF SHIP: MV 'AG/A JOANNA'
In the matter between
PRIMERA SHIPPING INC.
and
MV 'AG/A JOANNA '
CAPUCINE SHIPHOLDING INC.
LANGLOIS ENTERPRISES LIMITED
CASE NO: A52/2024
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties representatives via e-mail.
The date and tim e for hand dow n is deemed to be 14h00 on 13 No vember 2025.
ORDER
It is ordered:
1. The first and second respondents' application for reconsideration of the order
dated 1 o August 2024 is dismissed.
2. The first and second respondents are directed to pay the applicant's costs on scale
C , and such costs are to include the employment of senior counsel.
2
JUDGMENT
Bedderson J
Introduction
[1] On 10 August 2024 this court, exercising its admiralty jurisdiction, and pursuant to
an urgent ex parte application launched by the applicant, granted an order for the arrest
of the first respondent vessel (MV Agia loanna), on the basis that it is an associated ship
to the MV Glory (the ship concerned). The purpose of the arrest was to obtain security for
a charterparty claim that the applicant has against the third respondent, which is the
subject of arbitration proceedings that are currently underway in the capital city of London
in the United Kingdom .
[2] The first and second respondents on 14 August 2024 issued a letter of undertaking
under protest for the release of the MV Agia /oanna on the basis that it is not an associated
ship as alleged. The MV Agia loanna remains under a deemed arrest as contemplated in
terms of s 3(1 0)(a)(i) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 ('the Act').
[3] The order referred to in paragraph 1 above made provision for the respondents or
any person, who may provide security for the release of the MV Agia loanna, to make
application to vary or to set aside the order within one calendar month from the date of
the furnishings of the security, or on such extended period on good cause shown .
[4] On 29 August 2024, the first and second respondents delivered a notice in terms
of rule 47 of the Uniform Rules of Court, read with s 5(2) of the Act, on the applicant's
attorneys demanding security for legal costs in respect of their inte nde d application to set
aside the arrest. It is a common cause that both parties now seek security for their
respective costs in these proceedings.
3
[5] On 13 September 2024, the first and second respondents' attorneys served an
application to set aside the arrest. The application was only issued by the registrar of this
court on 24 October 2024.
[6] On 8 October 2024, the first and second respondents delivered an application for
the extension of the one month time period, referred to in paragraph 3 above. The
applicant thereafter delivered a notice dated 14 October 2024 opposing the application.
[7] The applicant thereafter delivered an application seeking leave to deliver a further
affidavit dealing with issues raised by the first and second respondents' replying affidavit
that was delivered in the application to set aside the arrest. This had the effect of
considerably increasing the volume of documents to approximately nine bundles to be
considered by this court.
[8] At the commencement of the hearing of the matter the parties agreed that both the
applications for condonation and the extension of time can be granted by consent, save
for the question of costs. Mr Fitzgerald SC , who appeared for the applicant, submitted
that the costs should be costs in the cause, while Mr Mullins SC and Mr Cooke , who
appeared for the first and second respondents, submitted that the applicant should be
held liable to pay the costs. Both parties, in my view , should have adopted a practical and
common sense approach in order to advance the speedy resolution of this matter. Neither
party did so, and I accordingly, in the excise of this court's discretion, ordered that the
costs in both applications be costs in the cause. I granted a similar order for costs in
respect of the applicant's application to deliver a further affidavit referred to in paragraph
7 above.
[9] The only issues that remain for determination were the first and second
respondents' application to set aside the arre st' and the respective pa rties' application for
security of costs.
4
[1 0] The application to set aside the arrest of the MV Agia loanna is essentially an
application to reconsider the order that was granted on 10 August 2024. as contemplated
in terms of rule 6(12)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Accordingly, the issue that falls to
be determined is whether the applicant has discharged the onus of establishing that the
MV Agia /oanna is an associated ship within the meaning of the Act.
[11] The Act sets out the meaning of an 'associated ship' ins 3(7)(a) to (c), which reads
as follows:
'(a) For the purposes of subsection (6) an associated ship means a ship, other than the ship
in respect of which the maritime claim arose-
(i) owned , at the time when the action is commenced , by the person who was the
owner of the ship concerned at the time when the maritime claim arose; or
(ii) owned , at the time when the action is commenced , by a person who controlled the
company which owned the ship concerned when the maritime claim arose; or
(iii) owned , at the time when the action is commenced , by a company which is
controlled by a person who owned the ship concerned, or controlled the company
which owned the ship concerned, when the maritime claim arose.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)-
(i) ships shall be deemed to be owned by the same persons if the majority in number
of, or of voting rights in respect of, or the greater part, in value, of, the shares in
the ships are owned by the same persons;
(ii) a person shall be deemed to control a company if he has power, directly or
indirectly, to control the company ;
(iii) a company includes any other juristic person and any body of persons, irrespective
of whether or not any interest therein consists of shares.
(c) If at any time a ship was the subject of a charter-party the charterer or subcharterer, as
the case may be, shall for the purposes of subsection (6) and this subsection be deemed to be
the owner of the ship concerned in respect of any relevant maritime claim for which the charterer
or the subcharterer, and not the owner, is alleged to be liable.'
Thus, ownership and control, direct or indirect, are key to establishing association.
[12] The applicant's case is that on 23 June 2021 , it chartered a ship owned by it, the
MV Glory (ie as mentioned above, the ship concerned) to the third respondent. In terms
5
of s 3(7)(c) of the Act, the third respondent, as charterers of the ship, are deemed to be
the owners of the ship concerned. In breach of the charterparty agreement the third
respondent failed to pay inter alia the hire and other charges due to the applicant.
[13] It is not disputed that the applicant has a claim for damages against the third
respondent arising out of the charterparty agreement referred to above and that such
dispute between the applicant and the third respondent is the subject of the arbitration
proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
[14] It is common cause that the associated ship (MV Agia Joanna) is registered to the
second respondent. The applicant alleges that the second respondent is ultimately
controlled by Newport SA (Newport) and Mr George Chatzis (Mr Chatzis). The evidence
relied upon by the applicant includes supporting evidence from marine data bases and
ship registers namely:
(a) Seasercher Report (annexure "LRS25") which lists the second respondent as
being the registered owner and Newport as the beneficial owner;
(b) Equasis Report (annexure "LRS26 ") corroborates this, describing the second
respondent as the registered owner and Newport as the management company ;
(c) Class Registration Report (annexure "LRS26A ") confirms the same ownership link.
The second respondent is a company based on the Marshall Islands. According to the
applicant, the transparency of the ownership of vessels is limited, due to the Marshall
Island's veil of secrecy regarding corporate shareholding.
[15] The applicant, in paragraphs 102 to 107 of the founding affidavit, contends that it
is clear that the second respondent's parent or ultimate company is reported to be
Newport. Newport is itself part of a larger fleet of associated vessels as recorded in the
Equasis Report (annexure "LRS27").
[16] The applicants, in paragraphs 108 to 113, essentially contends that Newport 's own
website lists the MV Agia Joanna as part of its fleet, claiming:
website lists the MV Agia Joanna as part of its fleet, claiming:
'Our fleet is designed to deliver exceptional performance and liability ... '
6
This, the applicant contends, amounts to Newport's admission of control or ownership.
Further, the shipyard records (China Shipbuilding) identify Newport as the ship's owner.
Screenshots of these web pages are annexed to the applicant's founding papers
(annexures "LRS29 " and "LRS30 ").
[17] The applicant, in paragraphs 114 to 121 of its founding affidavit, sets out the link
between the second respondent, Newport and Mr Chatzis namely:
(a) The second respondent is owned by Newport, a Greek company based in Piraeus.
(b) Newport itself is owned and controlled by Mr Chatzis.
(c) Multiple TradeWinds articles (annexures "LRS32" and "LRS33")1 identify Mr
Chatzis as a principal of Newport.
The applicant accordingly concludes that the second respondent (the owner of the MV
Agia Joanna) and the third respondent (the charterer of the ship concerned) are ultimately
under the common control of Mr Chatzis.
[18] Accordingly to the applicant the ship concerned was chartered by the third
respondent at the relevant time. The applicant contends, as already pointed out above,
under s 3(7)(c) of the Act, a charterer is deemed to be the owner of the ship for the
purposes of association where the charter gives rise to the claim. Since the third
respondent is ultimately owned or controlled by Mr Chatzis, through Newport, and the
applicant contends that the second and third respondents are both under the same
controlling person.
[19] The applicant concludes that the abovementioned evidence demonstrates that Mr
Chatzis is the ultimate beneficial owner and controller of both the third respondent
(charterer of the ship concerned) and the second respondent (registered owner of the
associated ship MV Agia Joanna). Therefore, under s 3(7) of the Act the MV Agia Joanna
1 H Papachristou 'Greek buyers focus on younge r bulk carriers in a vibrant S&P market' TradeWinds 31
May 2022 , available at https://www.tradewindsnews.com/bulkers/greek-buyers-focus-on-younger-bulk
camers-in-a-vibrant-s-p-market/2-1-1227802. H Papachristou 'Greek bulker buying heats up am id market
revival' TradeWinds 27 March 2023, available at https://www.tradewindsnews.com/bulkers/greek-bulker
buying-heats-up-amid-market-revival/2-1-1426343.
7
qualifies as an associated ship, and the applicant is accordingly entitled to the arrest of
the MV Agia Jonanna to obtain security for its maritime claim.
(20] The first and second respondents, in their application to set aside the arrest of the
MV Agia Joanna, rely primarily on the affidavit of Mr Vasileios Kakoulidis (Mr Kakoulidis),
a Greek national, who alleges that he is the sole shareholder of Grenelle Investments Inc.
(Grenelle), which in turn owns the second respondent, who is the registered owner of the
MV Agia Joanna. He claims to be the ultimate beneficial owner and person in control of
the vessel. He deposes to his affidavit in support of the second respondent and in support
of the application for the setting aside of the arrest of the MV Agia Joanna and the return
of the security.
[21] In support of his alleged ownership and control of the MV Agia Joanna, he states
that the second respondent purchased the MV Agia Joanna from Lauritzen Bulkers Ship
Owners A/S on 4 October 2022. The transaction documents eg. protocol of delivery,
incorporation certificates, shareholding documents and these are annexed to his affidavit
(annexures "VK" 1 to "VK 8"). He also provides documentation of his authority to operate
the bank accounts of the second respondent and his personal guarantee to Corner Banca
SA (a Swiss Bank) for a R 12 million loan secured by a Marshall Islands Ship mortgage
(annexures "VK9" to "V 11 "). According to him Newport is not an owner but a technical
and crewing manager of the MV Agia Joanna (annexures "VK 13" to "VK14 "). He denies
any ownership link between Newport SA and the MV Agia Joanna. The applicant's
reliance on Seasearcher data showing Newport as the 'beneficial owner' falls to be
dismissed as speculative and imprecise.
[22] Mr Kakoulidis further states that a company OINO Shipbrokers Co . Ltd (Onio) is a
company associated with him and his family and is the commercial manager of the MV
company associated with him and his family and is the commercial manager of the MV
Agia Joanna. Newport, as stated above, is only the technical manager as confirmed via a
crewing agreement and the Gard P&I Club documentation (annexure "VK 15").
8
[23) Mr Kakoulidis further states that the MV Agia Joanna is not an 'associated ship' of
the third respondent as the vessel is neither owned nor controlled by Mr Chatzis or
Newport, but by the second respondent, a company he beneficially owns through
Grenelle.
[24] The applicant in the answering affidavit to the first and second respondents'
application to set aside the arrest, contends that the second respondent's failure to
dispute that the third respondent and Newport are ultimately controlled by Mr Chatzis
amounts to a concession that Newport is not nearly a technical manager , but a party with
direct interest and control over the second respondent. It is also alleged that Mr Kakoulidis
has selectively disclosed information to mislead the court and downplay his role. The
applicant further contends that in the event that the application is not dismissed that both
Mr Kakoulidis and Mr George Damdimopoulos, who described himself as the legal
representative of Newport, be compelled to give oral evidence and be cross-examined
due to concerns over the credibility of their affidavits. In this regard the court was referred
to a draft order (annexure "LRS6 "), annexed to the affidavit.
[25] The applicant further contends that Seasearcher is routinely used in South African
admiralty cases as corroborative evidence. Further, courts are often unable to access
ownership data directly due to opaque jurisdictions, like the Ma rshall Islands and Liberia.
The applicant further points out that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in MV Silver Star
Owners of the MV Silver Star v Hilane Ltd2 affirms the legitimacy of relying on such
circumstantial evidence.
[26] The applicant further contends that despite asserting his sole shareholder status
in Grenelle, Mr Kakoulidis fails to disclose his links to Oino, who core business is
shipbroking, sale and purchase brokerage. Website records, attached to an email dated
shipbroking, sale and purchase brokerage. Website records, attached to an email dated
2 MV Silver Star Owners of the MV Silver Star v Hilane Ltd [2014] ZAS C A 194; 2015 (2) SA 331 (S CA)
(Silver Star) para 46.
9
28 July 2022 (annexures "LRS11 " and "LRS12 ")3 show Mr Kakoudilis as managing
director of Oino. Anne xure "LRS 13" confirms that:
(a) Oino handles all of Newport's sale and purchase deal;
(b) sales of various vessel (eg, the MV 'Admiral Bulker' renamed MV 'Agia Sofia), and
links to 'Agia' prefix suggest common ownership and branding practices.
This article also reveals that Newport acts as shipowner, but prefers discretion. Many
vessels renamed w ith the prefix 'Agia', suggest unified ownership. Further, multiple sales
arranged by Oino on behalf of Newport are further signs of a lose operational and
commercial linking. under
[27] In light of the aforegoing, it is contended that the failure by Mr Kakoudilis to disclose
his role in Oino is a deliberate misrepresentation.
[28] The applicant points out that the memorandum of agreement presented by Mr
Kakoudilis, dated 8 June 2022, took place before the second respondent's incorporation
on 23 June 2022. Further, the second respondent only sought financing in November
2022, after the vessel was delivered on 4 October 2022. The financing was also limited
in light of the reported sale price, and it is contended that this discrepancy implies an
alternative or undisclosed fund was used to pay the seller, and that the plausibility of Mr
Kakoudilis funding the purchase is questionable. Multiple annexures, including annexures
"LRS18 " and "LRS 19" quote reputable shipping publications that identify Newport as the
true purchaser of the vessel and similar ships. Newport is also described in these
publications as a 'busy buyer and seller of bulkers'.
[29] The applicant also points out that this structure of guarantees, mortgages and
borrower arrangements are identical across vessels, including Ag ia Fotini, Agia Eleni,
Agia Triada, Agia M oni and Ag ia Filothei. In each case, M r Kakoudilis is listed as the
3 The w ebsite reports focused on the tim e sheets reflecting the various harbours, etc. that the M V Glory
sailed to, and w hich company controlled the M V G lory's operations, in light of the m ilitary situation in
U kraine.
10
personal guarantor and Oino is named as the borrower or service address reinforcing a
common beneficial ownership structure.
[30] It is the applicant's contention that Mr Kakoudilis holds shares as a nom inee on
behalf of Newport, and accordingly challenges the claim that Mr Kakoudilis is the
beneficial owner. Further, the incorporation documents of the second respondent and its
shareholder Grenelle show inconsistencies in timelines and share transfers, including the
issuing of bearer shares and their conversion. The shares are ultimately said to be held
by Bronze Ventures Limited, another Marshall Islands company (annexure "VK11 "). This,
the applicant contends further, supports the conclusion of a layered nominee ownership.
[31] According to the applicant common banking details are also evident. It points out
that Corner Bank is also the nominated bank for both Newport and another vessel (MV
Glory) managed by the third respondent. An inference of association can be drawn from
common bank accounts, shared mortgage relationships, and loan clauses required in the
use of specific accounts. Further, financial documents like SWIFT (annexure "LRS22a ")
advice and charter payment notices link the third respondent, Newport and the second
respondent to the same financial infrastructure.
[32] Insofar as the Moors Stephens report is concerned the applicant challenges its
credibility and contends that it was produced for litigation and is not in keeping with normal
auditing functions.
[33] The Newport website (annexure "LRS23"), which is annexed, clearly demonstrates
that it holds itself out as the owner of a fleet of vessels including those with the prefix
'Agia'. The applicant contends that Newport is not simply the technical managers , but is
indicative of beneficial ownership.
[34] Insofar as the affidavit of Mr Damdimopoulos is concerned , it is pointed out that no
actual legal documentation has been produced to prove his role as a representative or
legal proxy of Newport.
11
[35] The further affidavit of the applicant referred to in paragraph 8 of this judgment,
and which was deposed to by Ms Lana Ruth Stockton, a partner at the attorneys for the
applicant, was delivered to deal with factual matters raised by Mr Giordano Luigi Pinna,
the head of shipping finance at Corner Bank SA , the second respondent's mortgage bank.
Her affidavit primarily responds to paragraphs 243-144 and 192-213 of Mr Pinna's
affidavit and specifically addresses the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) Code of
Conduct document introduced by Mr Pinna and introduced as form A . Mr Pinna had
suggested that form A is sufficient to identify the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) of the
second respondent.
[36] Ms Stockton disputes Mr Pinna's interpretation of form A and the SBA code and
contends that:
(a) Mr Pinna's interpretation is incorrect and misleading;
(b) form A does not identify the UBO of the contracting party (ie, in this case the
second respondent);
(c) Mr Pinna's affidavit fails to explain why no completed form K (which is required
when the account holder is a legal entity) was provided;
(d) the failure to provide form K suggests a lack of transparency about the true
beneficial ownership.
[37] Ms Stockton points out that the second respondent's bank account was opened
for a legal entity, not an individual, and that in such cases, form K is ordinarily required to
identify the UBO. She further annexes a copy of the relevant SBA agreement (annexure
"LRS 1 ") and contends that:
(a) Article 27 of the SBA code does not support Mr Pinna's position and;
(b) The affidavit by Mr Pinna was submitted to create a false impression of
transparency.
She states that the lack of form K and the failure to identify the UBO calls into question
whether the second respondent is merely a front for another party (relevant to the
associated ship arrest).
12
[38] Finally the applicant contends that the application for reconsideration falls to be
dismissed with costs, on a scale including senior counsel and expert fees, alternatively,
given the fact that the matter cannot be resolved on paper due to the disputes of fact and
credibility, that the issue of association be referred for oral evidence.
The law
[39] It is trite that the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities an alleged
association in a shipping arrest falls on the applicant.4 Section 3 of the Act provides the
requirements that must be met, where a party claims, for purposes of a ship arrest, that
one ship is associated with the ship concerned, sometimes referred to as the 'guilty ship'.
Hare summarised these requirements as follows:5
'the associated ship must now be owned by the same person who then owned the guilty ship
when the cause of action arose ... the associated ship must now (at the time of the arrest) be
owned by a person who then (when the maritime claim arose) controlled the company which then
owned the guilty ship ... the associated ship must now (at the time of the arrest) be owned by a
company which is now controlled by a person who then owned the guilty ship, or who then
controlled the company which then owned the guilty ship (when the claim arose) [ie] both ships
are company owned.' (Footnotes omitted.)
[40] The SCA in Silver Star also provides a summary of these requirements which
highlight the importance of ownership and control, as set out in the Act, in relation to
associated ship arrests, detailing that:6
'An associated ship arrest can be sought in the following circumstances. There must be a ship in
respect of which a maritime claim has arisen. This is referred to as the ship concerned. Then
there must be another ship-the associated ship-that satisfies the requirements of s 3(7)(a) of
the Act, in that it is either in the same ownership as the ship concerned, or where both ships are
owned by companies, as is ordinarily the case, control of the company owning the ship concerned
4 Cargo Laden and Lately Laden on Board the MV Thalassini Avgi v MV Oimitris 1989 (3) SA 820 (A) at
830C-D , Bocimar NV v Kotor Overseas Shipping Ltd 1994 (2) SA 563 (A) at 5818 -F
5 J Hare Shipping Law & Admiralty Jurisdiction in South Africa 2 ed (2009) at 107-108.
6 Silver Star para 14.
13
at the time the claim arose must be the same as control of the company that owns the associated
ship at the time of its arrest.'
[41] The MV Ne w Endeavor and Others v Indian Oil C orporation Ltd' points out that
proving an association between two ships is not a straightforward undertaking, specifically
stating it as follows:
'The arrest of an associated ship is not an easy task. In the textbook titled The Associated Ship
and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction (The Associated Ship), the author, MJD Wallis,
expressed himself on this issue as follows:
"The task of proving the association is complicated by the relative inaccessibility of the key
information required to demonstrate the identity of the person or persons w ho control the
two ship-owning companies .... In the circumstances an applicant for arrest is confronted
with the heavy burden of proving a disputed matter on a balance of probabilities on the
papers when it has no direct access to the relevant information and ma y well be confronted
with the withholding of information, disingenuousness and downright dishonesty."'
(Footnote omitted.)
New Ende avor provides a useful discussion of the law and the legal requirements that
must be taken into account in determining whether a ship is an associated ship within the
meaning of the Act.8
[42] Silver Star adds that the reason for allowing parties to arrest associated ships, in
terms of the Act is to 'make the loss fall where it belongs by reason of ownership, and in
the case of a company , ownership or control of the shares'.9
An analysis of the evidence
[43] When one analyses the evidence relied upon by the applicant to prove the
association, a common thread or theme appears from the reports relied upon (see
7 MV New Endeavor and Others v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2024] ZASCA 67; 2024 (6) SA 64 (SCA) (N ew
EndeavotJ para 9, quoting with approval from M JD W allis The Associated Ship and Sou th African Admiralty
Jurisdiction (Siber Ink 201 1) (Th e Asso ciated Ship).
Jurisdiction (Siber Ink 201 1) (Th e Asso ciated Ship).
6 New Endeavor paras 12-18, see also the authorities cited therein.
9 Silver Star para 40, Euromarine International of Mauren v the Ship B erg and Others 1986 (2) SA 700 (A)
at 711J-712A, M V H eavy M etal; B elfry M arine Ltd v Pa lm Base Ma ritime SON BHD 1999 (3) SA 1083
(SCA ) (Heavy Me ta{) para 4 of M arais JA 's minority judgme nt, summ arising s 3(7)(a) of the Act, as w ell as
paras 7-8 of Sm alberger JA's majority judgment.
14
annexures "LRS13 ", "LRS14 ", "LRS18", "LRS19" and "LRS23 ") namely that Newport is
the purchaser of various vessels with the prefix 'Agia', including the first respondent the
MV Agia Joanna.10 It is stated in these articles that Newport is a company led by Mr
Chatzis, and that the deal was brokered by Oino of which Mr Kakoudilis is the managing
director (annexure "LRS12 ").
[44] The first and second respondents on the other hand rely on documents (annexure
"VK9 ", "VK11 " and "VK12 ") to support the conclusion that Mr Kakoudilis is the owner of
the MV Agia Joanna. The respondents highlight multiple pieces of alleged objective
evidence namely the banking guarantee that Mr Kakoudilis personally signed in favour of
Corner Bank for a loan to the second respondent, a resolution signed by the second
respondent to open accounts and manage all financial and contractual matters on behalf
of the second respondent as well as management agreements that he had signed for the
MV Agia Joanna for its commercial operations, to demonstrate that Mr Kakoudilis is the
beneficial owner of the MV Agia Joanna and not Mr Chatzis or Newport.
[45] The discrepancies highlighted by the applicant in paragraph 28 of this judgment
underlines material discrepancies relating to the acquisition and financing of the MV Agia
Joanna and, in my view, is important to take into account in coming to my conclusion.
Further, the discrepancies referred to in paragraph 30 of this judgment are also, in my
view, material discrepancies.
[46] The respondents' failure to produce a full set of loan and sale documents between
the seller and buyer of the MV Agia Joanna is not explained. The agreement referred to
in annexure "VK1 ", dated 8 June 2022 predates the incorporation of the second
respondent and Grenelle. The loan agreement and guarantee document contradict what
Mr Kakoudilis states, and identify Bronze Ventures Ltd, and not the second respondent,
Mr Kakoudilis states, and identify Bronze Ventures Ltd, and not the second respondent,
as the sole shareholder, further supporting the applicant's contention that the ownership
trail is contrived. further, the absence of form K filings as required by the SBA 's code
10 Heavy Me tal para 16 of Ma rais JA 's minority judgment, Silver Star para 47.
15
process places in doubt the reliance or the authenticity of form A, upon which the
respondents rely to prove Mr Kakoudilis's ownership.
[4 7] I am satisfied that the evidence relied upon by the applicant tips the scales in favour
of the applicant. There is no reason to depart from the sensible and practical approach
adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeal to the probative value to be attached to the
SeaSearcher reports and publications like Tradewinds and in this regard I refer
particularly to New Endeavor and Silver Star. In contrast, the contradictions in the
documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents do not support the conclusion that
Mr Kakoudilis is the ultimate beneficial owner of the MV Agia loanna.
[48) I am accordingly satisfied that the applicant has established the alleged
association on a balance of probabilities.
[49) In conclusion, the application for the reconsideration of the order granted on 10
August 2024, falls to be dismissed. Having come to this conclusion there is accordingly
no need, in my view, to deal with the referral of the matter to the hearing of oral evidence.
On the issue relating to the application and counter application for the security for costs,
this court has a discretion as to whether to order the provision of security. Both parties
have submitted to the jurisdiction of this court. The applicant has already obtained
security and in my view there is no need for further security to be furnished. Further,
having reached the decision on the merits in respect of the main application I am also of
the view that at this stage there is no need for me to grant an order for security in respect
of the first and second respondents' application.
[50] I accordingly grant the following order:
1. The first and second respondents' application for reconsideration of the order
dated 1 O August 2024 is dismissed.
2. The first and second respondents are directed to pay the applicant's costs on scale
2. The first and second respondents are directed to pay the applicant's costs on scale
C , and such costs are to include the employment of senior counsel.
16
2. The first and second respondents are directed to pay the applicant's costs on scale
C , and such costs are to include the employment of senior counsel.
Bedderson J
Date of H earing:
Date of Judgment:
Counsel for the Applicants:
Instructed by:
Counsel for the Respondents:
Instructed by:
02 May 2025
13 November 2025
Advocate Fitzgerald SC
Bowman Gilfillan Inc
22 Bree Street, Cape Town
e-mail: lana.stockton@bowmanslaw.com;
Nthato.padi@bowmanslaw.com
Tel: 021 - 480 7800
c/o Bowman Gilfillan Inc
Umhlanga Ridgeside
Tel: 031 109 1150
Advocate Mullis SC with Adv Cooke
Webber Wentzel
Heerengracht, Cape Town
c/o Goodrickes Attorneys
Umhlanga
Tel: 031 - 301 6211
e-mail: ca2@goodrickes.co.za
17