This was an admiralty claim. The facts were set out in CBW Global Co Ltd v MV Yin Shun [2026] TZHC 96 (CMI2755). After the Court overruled the respondent's objections against its admiralty jurisdiction, the applicant reiterated its claims based on the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA). It argued that it had a maritime lien against the first respondent. The respondent denied that the applicant's claim for goods or materials supplied to nine ships for their operation or maintenance gave rise to a maritime lien under the MSA.

Held: Application for ship arrest dismissed with costs.

Ship arrest may be effected where the applicant has a maritime lien against the ship; to put it differently, where there is an action in rem against the ship. Section 98 of the MSA explains maritime liens to mean:

... (d) claims against the owner, based on a wrongful act and not on contract, in respect of loss of or damage to property occurring whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the ship;

The primary purpose of arrest of the ship is to obtain security for satisfaction of the judgment in the action in rem. The nature of this relief (arrest of a ship before judgment) is akin to attachment before judgment. The rationale of such orders was well explained in Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 769, 785g-786a, as follows:

So far as it lies in their power, the courts will not permit the course of justice to be frustrated by a defendant taking action, the purpose of which is to render nugatory or less effective any judgment or order which the applicant may thereafter obtain.

It follows that for this Court to order the arrest of a ship (the first respondent) before judgment, it must, among other aspects, be satisfied that the applicant's claims are genuine, its cause of action is prima facie valid, and there is a risk that after final determination of the plaintiff's clams the decree may be nugatory.

To establish this, the applicant must establish its claim on a balance of probabilities based on the facts in the affidavits. As to whether the claims fall within the purview of s 98(a) of the MSA, there is nothing exhibited against the respondent to that effect reflecting a maritime lien. There is also a dispute regarding the ownership of the respondent and its relevance to the applicant's debtors.

To order the arrest of the first respondent before the hearing is a severe measure and should be exercised with careful consideration based on the facts. In this application, the facts in the applicant's favour did not suffice.