Afgri Grain Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the time being of Copenship Bulkers A/S (in liquidation) and Others

The matter concerned an appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal arising from litigation about the arrest of funds under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The Gauteng Division of the High Court had confirmed the arrest of funds held in bank accounts belonging to Afgri Grain Marketing (Pty) Ltd. Leave to appeal was granted, and concurrently Copenship brought an application under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act to enforce the arrest order pending appeal. The High Court ordered that certain funds remain under arrest, additional security be provided, and that Afgri pay the costs of the section 18(3) application. When the appeal was decided by the SCA, its costs order erroneously included the costs of the section 18(3) application, even though that issue was not properly before it. Copenship subsequently applied for a variation of the SCA’s costs order to remove that portion.

Paragraph 2(b) of the SCA’s earlier order was amended by deleting the words ‘and the costs of the application in terms of s 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013’.

The case clarifies the limits of an appellate court’s authority to interfere with costs orders relating to proceedings that are not properly before it. It underscores the importance of correctly identifying the scope of an appeal, particularly in relation to section 18(3) applications and automatic appeal rights under the Superior Courts Act.