In South Africa it is possible to arrest any property (not only marine property) to obtain security for a claim that the arresting party is pursuing, or will pursue, in another forum or jurisdiction. To obtain such an arrest, the applicant must show that its need for security is genuine and reasonable.

In a June 2025 unreported High Court judgment in the mv “East Ayutthaya”, the court confirms the orthodox approach to security under section 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and clarifies how to use third‑party evidentiary material under section 6. The issue of genuine and reasonable need for security was upheld. Leave was granted because the court had admitted investigative reports but had not weighed their evidential value. The message is constructive: South Africa remains a predictable and effective arrest forum when claims are prepared with transparent, verifiable evidence.

Need for security: what must be shown (and why this is achievable)

The inquiry is sequential and familiar. A claimant must first show a genuine and reasonable apprehension that, if successful, an award will not be met. Only then does the court exercise its discretion to order security. Insolvency is not required. The exercise is objective and document-driven, anchored in the audited accounts, funding structure and cash-flow profile of the owner of the arrested assets.

In East Ayutthaya, the threshold was met on a cumulative assessment of well‑known indicators. Earlier accounts recorded liabilities exceeding assets and “material uncertainty” on going concern; later accounts reflected a small equity cushion (about USD 500,000) against a USD 823,000 claim. A single‑year profit of roughly USD 682,000, which was sensitive to the timing of hire receipts, did not remove enforcement risk. Large related‑party transfers (about USD 12.1 million in 2023 and USD 8 million in 2022) and reliance on shareholder/affiliate loans heightened the prospect of insider preference. The business model involved high upfront costs and delayed or disputed hire receipts, which kept earnings volatile despite the asserted improvements.

For practitioners, this is a workable standard. It focuses on objective material the claimant can obtain and exhibit. Where the records show thin capitalisation relative to the claim, auditor warnings, material related‑party flows, and dependence on insider funding, the court is receptive to security. Conversely, a consistently profitable, well‑capitalised counterparty with no value leakage is unlikely, without more, to trigger a reasonable apprehension the award will not be met. Proportionality and alternatives still matter at the discretion stage, but they can be met in practice by engaging promptly with equivalent forms of security.

Third‑party reports: admissibility versus weight (a usable roadmap)

Section 6 sets a two-step discipline. Under section 6(3) the court may admit hearsay, including commercial intelligence reports, particularly in urgent arrest proceedings. Under section 6(4) the court decides what weight to give that material. The East Ayutthaya court granted leave because the reports, which were central to the association case, were admitted without any analysis of their probative value. This is not a counsel of despair. It is a roadmap for how to make such reports persuasive.

Reports on the financial position of shipowners, or the association of ships in a fleet, carry weight when they enable the court to verify and test. They should explain how the work was done (which registries, filings and databases were checked, with dates and search terms, and how conflicts were resolved), say who did the work and why they are qualified, and exhibit the underlying documents (company extracts, directorships, share registers, PSC/UBO filings, vessel registers, mortgages, dynastic connections, media articles and audited financials). Timing matters because control changes; the evidence must record when sources were accessed and state the position at a defined date. Analysis matters too: the court will separate fact from inference (particularly across nominee layers), corroborate proprietary databases against official records, and engage with contrary documents put up by an opponent. Where feasible, an accountability statement from the author of any report assists the court’s section 6(4) assessment.

Viewed this way, section 6 is an advantage in South African practice. It permits use of hearsay in urgent arrests, while giving a clear set of expectations to convert that material into proof on the balance of probabilities at reconsideration. The standard is transparent and manageable.

Practical approach that works in South Africa

Start with official registry and PSC/UBO extracts and the counterparty’s audited accounts. Use a focused report to identify additional sources and to knit the control narrative together. Put the primary documents in the papers (or certified extracts) and explain how the pieces fit: who owns what, when, and on what basis. Build the security case around the other side’s numbers, equity cushion versus claim size, auditor notes, funding sources and related‑party flows, and then address proportionality and available alternatives.

When prepared this way, arrests in South Africa remain effective. The ports are accessible, the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act provides flexible, well‑understood tools, and the courts apply a stable framework. A claimant who presents verifiable documents and a transparent analysis secures protection. A respondent who wishes to resist must meet substance with substance.

Celosia Shipping Ltd v MV “East Ayutthaya” and Others (Leave to Appeal) 2025 JDR 2731 (KZD) (20 June 2025)