The applicant, CBW Global Co Ltd, brought a claim against the first respondent, the MV Yin Shun, and the second respondent, Blue Whale Group Co Ltd, for USD 648,242 for goods or materials supplied to ships. The applicant sought the arrest of the first respondent, security, and the attachment of the MV CMA CGM Nerval, then berthed at Dar es Salaam Port, pending provision of security. The claim against the second respondent was subsequently withdrawn.

The application was made under: s 3 of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, Cap 358 (the JALA); ss 2(1) and 3(1)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act, Cap 165 (the MSA); ss (1) and 3(1)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873; general maritime law; the Arrest Convention 1952 (arts 1.1.k and 2); and any other enabling provisions of the law.

The respondent argued that the application was bad in law and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Held: Objections to admiralty jurisdiction overruled.

The Arrest Convention 1952 was not ratified by Tanzania. In any event, to have the force of law even after ratification this would need to be domesticated, which is not the case here. In the absence of ratification and domestication of the Convention, it cannot be the basis of this Court's jurisdiction.

With regard to other provisions, looking at the nature of the application, it is akin to attachment before judgment. Ordinarily, this would have been taken care by O XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 (the CPC). However, the application is based on an action in rem against the ship (the first respondent). Thus, the claims and the prayers for attachments of the ship/vessel are admiralty claims. The question posed here is whether the applicant's claims can be entertained by this Court.

Section 3 of the JALA provides:

The High Court shall be a Court of Admiralty and shall, subject to the provisions of any written law, have jurisdiction which is conferred upon it or which may hereafter be conferred upon it as such Court of Admiralty by any written law and, more particularly, shall have jurisdiction to make orders and to hear and determine claims, proceedings and other matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by the Merchant Shipping Act.

Sections 2(1) and 3(1)(b) of the MSA define 'court' for the purpose of admiralty claims to be 'the High Court of Tanzania, or the Resident Magistrates' Court'.

The exercise of admiralty powers is subject to the written law. Apart from the MSA, the parties agree that there is no specific rule of procedure in exercise of such powers. In MT Galaxy v Tanga Petroleum, Misc Application no 33 of 2007, Teemba J acknowledged that there were no 'Rules of Procedure' for admiralty cases in Tanzania, but accepted the Admiralty Courts Act 1890 (Imp), as adopted in Tanzanian laws by Tanganyika Order in Council, and went on to entertain the relief sought. Academic literature underscores that ship arrest in Tanzania has to be confined to what the British courts had established prior to 1920.

In Chemical Initiatives (Pty) v The Owner of Marine Vessel MV Salina, Commercial Case no 19 of 2008, this Court brought into play O XXXVI of the CPC, entertained the prayers, and went on to grant relief of attaching a vessel unless security was paid. It is settled that in as much as this Court is by law vested with admiralty powers and the applicant has an enforceable claim, this Court should not fold its hands when asked to rise. The objection on jurisdiction is overruled.

With regard to the attachment of the MV CMA CGM Nerval, its relevance to the first respondent, but also to the applicant's claim, cannot be answered at this stage.

[See also CBW Global Co Ltd v MV Yin Shun [2026] TZHC 145 (CMI2756).]