This was a claim for unpaid port agency fees, port dues, and disbursements: see Fairtrans Marine, Trading & Forwarding SAE v Da Yang Bai He [2026] TZHC 2348 (CMI2826). The defendant argued that the plaintiff's application was bad in law in that it relied on unpaid fees in Egypt, which did not constitute a maritime lien or a recognised statutory right in rem enforceable in Tanzania, and should be struck out with costs.

Held: The defendant's preliminary objection is rejected. The parties shall proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The plaintiff's application was instituted under ss 2(2), 2(3), and 3 of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act [Cap 358 RE 2023] (the JALA); ss 2(1), 3(1)(b), 98(1)(b), and 426 of the Merchant Shipping Act [Cap 165 RE 2023] (the MSA); para 1(m) of Pt A of the Sch to the Tanzania Shipping Agencies (Ratified International Conventions and Regional Instruments) Notice, GN No 71 of 2025, art 28.3 of UNCLOS 1982; and s 78(e) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 RE 2023], read together with O XXXVI rr 6 and 7 thereof (the CPC).

Article 28 of UNCLOS, which deals with civil jurisdiction in relation to foreign ships, provides as follows:

1. The coastal State should not stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction in relation to a person on board the ship.

2. The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.

3. Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the right of the coastal State, in accordance with its laws, to levy execution against or to arrest, for the purpose of any civil proceedings, a foreign ship lying in the territorial sea, or passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

This Convention was ratified and domesticated to operate in Tanzania as municipal law on 15 October 1989 via Act No 3 of 1989, now codified as the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act [Cap 238 RE 2023]; and the articles of UNCLOS above are attached as a Schedule to this Act.

Also, UNCLOS is recognized under the Tanzania Shipping Agencies (Ratified International Conventions and Regional Instruments) Notice GN No 71 of 2025, which was published on 7 February, 2025 under Pt A of its Sch which deals with International Conventions, Protocols, Annexes and Regional Agreements ratified by the United Republic of Tanzania relating to Ships, Merchant Shipping, and Maritime Transport, particularly item 1(m).

Additionally, s 2(2) of the JALA extends the jurisdiction of the High Court to the territorial waters of the United Republic of Tanzania, and s 3 constitutes the High Court as a court of Admiralty endowed with jurisdiction and authority to entertain, hear and determine admiralty causes, claims and proceedings, together with powers to issue such admiralty orders as the circumstances of each case may warrant. In pari materia, the MSA likewise confers admiralty jurisdiction upon the High Court in respect of maritime claims and disputes.

Further, s 3 of the JALA expressly establishes the High Court of Tanzania as a Court of Admiralty vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine admiralty claims, proceedings and matters arising, among other things, under the MSA, together with all incidental and consequential powers to grant appropriate admiralty relief and orders.

This Court is thus clothed with the requisite jurisdiction and competent authority to entertain and adjudicate upon this matter.

Determination of the respondent's challenge inevitably requires this Court to examine and interpret contested factual matters arising from the supporting affidavit and the surrounding maritime transactions. In this regard, the Court would be required to determine, among other things: the exact nature of the services rendered by the applicant; whether the alleged dues constitute maritime claims recognised under the MSA and international maritime Conventions; whether the payments made by the applicant were merely contractual disbursements or maritime necessaries attaching to the vessel; and whether the relationship between the parties is purely contractual, or capable of sustaining an action in rem.

Those questions cannot be conclusively determined without a fuller factual inquiry and evidentiary evaluation. Indeed, even the authorities cited by both parties demonstrate that maritime claims and admiralty jurisdiction are highly dependent upon the particular factual matrix of each case.

Similarly, the authority of CBW Global v MV Yin Shun (CMI2756) relied on by the defendant does not conclusively dispose of this matter at the preliminary stage. The factual background, the precise statutory provisions invoked, and the nature of the maritime transactions in that case are distinguishable from the present proceedings.

The plaintiff has invoked not only s 98(1)(b) of the MSA, but also wider jurisdictional provisions under the JALA, UNCLOS, and the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone framework. Whether those provisions ultimately sustain the plaintiff's substantive claim is a matter that calls for substantive adjudication rather than summary disposal through a preliminary objection.