clr/1987/1987_1_186.pdf

(3)From the authonttes o n the subject of the transfer of the property of goods from the seller, manufacturer etc to the buyer itappears that the mere handing of the goods by the seller to the buyer passes the property 35 immediately unless a different intention appears f r o m the terms of the contract of sale In this case there was such different intention (See Exhibit 4) It follows that the buyers, namely Mr Abuzeid and Mr A l Sahy or either of 187 Scheepswerf v. Ship Algazera

(1987)them could notuntilfull payment of whatthey owed totheplaintiffs, partwith the ownership of theship without theconsent of the plaintiffs

(5)Inthelight of theabove judgment willbe entered for the plaintiffs Judgment asper claim with costs Casesreferredto Asimenos ν Paraskeva[\982) 1CLR145,. Pitna Shipping EnterpnsesInc ν Georghiou[1982) 1C LR 358 Admiraltyaction Admiralty actionfor theequivalent inCyprusPoundsof thesum 10 of 650,000.- Dutch Guilders (Dfls) balance of theagreed pnce for the constructionof thedefendant ship "Algazera" L. Papaphilipou. for the plaintiffs E.Montanios with D.HadjiChambisfor the defendants. Cur adv. vult 15 DEMETRIADESJ.read thefollowing judgment.This isanaction by which the plaintiffs, a Dutch ship-building company, claim the equivalent in Cyprus Pounds of the sum of 650,000.- Dutch Guilders (Dfls) balance of the agreed price for theconstructionof the defendant ship. 20 The wnt ofsummonswas issued against thedefendant shipand is addressed to "Abdul-Hamid Mtrza Al-Sahy of Abu-Dhabi and Suheil Hanna Masud Abuzeid of EsherSurrey, GreatBritain,the owners of the ship 'ALGAZERA', and all other interested in the said ship." 25 188 1 C.L.R. Scheepswerf v.Ship Algazera Demetrladee J. The undisputed factsof the case,aspresented tothe Court, are inbrief thefollowing Onthe3rdJuly 1978 Mr Abuzeid, Defence Witness No 4 (QW4) and a certain Mr Al Sahy who is not a witness in these proceedings entered into a wntten agreement 5 withtheplaintiffs (which wasproduced and isexhibitNo 3 before me) by which the latter undertook to build for them a ship in accordance with specifications and terms descnbed therein The pnce agreed for the construction of the vessel was 3,700,000 Dfls When this contract was signed the ship was already under 10 construction asMr Abuzeid hadearlierentered intoan agreement with the plaintiffs for her construction and had then paid, on account of her pnce, the sum of Dfls 1200 000 - made out of funds partly available personally by him and partly from a loan made to him by Mr Bodewes the Managing Director of the 15 plaintiffs He iswitness No 3 for them Aphotocopy ofthe agreement exhibitNo 3wasproduced and isattached tothisjudgment asAppendix A' Itisan undisputed fact that on the dayexhibit No 3 wassigned by the parties, Mr Al-Sahy paid to the plaintiffs the sum of Dfls 2C 300,000 towards *^epnro of theshra and that on a later day he made a further payment of Dfls 800,000 It is, also, an undisputed fact that after the shipwasconstructed she wastested and the purchasers were fully satisfied with her performance As they intended to have her registered in theirjoint names in Abu- 25 Dhabi-in the United Arab_Emirates, they asked the plaintiffs to provide them with the "Builders Certificate" The plaintiffs acceded totheirrequest after thepurchaserssigned exhibitNo 4, which reads- 30 35 «Herewith we 1 Abdul Hamid 2 Saheil Abuzeid declarethatthereceived builderscertificate givesnonghtsfor the ownership of the mentioned ship This ship will only be the property of the above mentioned owners after they have paid thefull contract pnce oftheship inclusiveeventualextra pnces · AsMr Abuzeidtoldme,thisdocumentwastakenbyhimtoMr 189 Demetrlades J. Scheepswerf v.Ship Algazera

(1987)Al-Sahy for signature and that after itwas signed by him and Mr. Al-Sahy, he handed it to Mr. Bodewes who then handed to him the "Builders Certificate" Itisnot in dispute that abalance of the contract price isstill due and payable andthatafteravisitofMr.BodewestoAbu-Dhabi Mr. 5 Al-Sahy paid tohim thesum of Dfls.400.000.-and thathe further signed for thebalance then due and amounting toDfls.650.000.two cheques, the first payable on the 7th July and the second on the 7th August,

1. It is. also, an undisputed fact that these cheques were never honoured. 10 Mr. Al-Sahy was not called to give evidence as to why his two cheques werenothonoured. Mr.Abuzeid,whogaveevidence on behalf of the alleged present owners of the ship, said that the payment ofthebalanceofthecontractpricewasadebt exclusively and solelyowed by Mr.Al-Sahytotheplaintiffs and thathewasin 15 no way responsible for its payment. Verybriefly thecase forthepersons defending thisaction isthat Mr. Abuzeid bought the shares owned by his partner inthe ship and that he transferred ownership of her to Cerise Maritime Company S.A., a company registered in Panama (hereinafter 20 referred to as "Cerise") under the name of "SHERRY JOY". Before Iproceed to deal with the evidence adduced and the issues that call for decision, I feel that I should answer the submission made bythe plaintiffs that thisaction isundefended as itwasfiled againstthe ship,acertain Mr.Abuzeid and Mr.Al-Sahy 25 and any person interested in her and that the lawyers who defended the action appeared on behalf of a company named Cerise Maritime Company S.A., ofPanama. He further submitted that under 0.75, r. 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court their appearance, in order to be a good one, had to comply with and 30 follow the requirements of thatrule. 0.75 of the Rules of the Supreme Court was originally introduced in 1962 and was revised in
2. This Order is a reproduction with amendments of 0.12, r. 24, that was in force before 1962.Before thecomingintoforceof0.75,0.12, r.24read 35 190 1 C.L.R. Scheepswerfv. ShipAlgazera Demetxtade»J. (and I quote from the White Book of1955) 5 «InanAdmiralty action inremany person notnamedinthe wnt may intervene and appear as heretofore, on filingan affidavit showing thatheisinterested intheresunderarrest,or inthe fund inthe Registry » AnotetothisOrder under the heading "Practice"reads- 10 15 «In London actions the affidavit is filed at the Admiralty Registry, and a note is there written on the appearance. "Affidavit of interest filed', such note being initialled bythe properofficer inAdmiralty Theappearanceisthen enteredat the Central Office InDistrict Registry actions theaffidavit is filed and the appearance entered at the District Registry Notice must be given tothe plaintiff orpersons interested as by an ordinary defendant 'AnyPerson not named - Inactionsinremthe wntis usually directed'totheowners andpersons interestedin'theproperty proceeded against SeeΟ2.rr 3 7» The provision intheCyprus Admiralty JurisdictionOrder, 1893 thatgoverns procedureinadmiralty actionsisr 35which provides 20 that the parties named inthewinvl summons and «yen»person interested intheproperty sought tobeaffected bytheaction who desires todisputetheplaintiffs claimshallappearbefore theCourt orJudgeeitherpersonally orbyadvocateatthetimenamed inthat behalf mthewnt ofsummons 25 Rule 237 of the Cyprus Admiralty Jurisdiction Order, 1893 further provides that in all cases not provided by theserules the practiceof theAdmiralty Division of the HighCourtofJusticeof England, sofarasthesameshallappear tobeapplicable, shall be followed. 30 Rule35 ofourAdmiraltyRulesis,inmyview, very clearinthat itgivestherighttoevery personinterestedintheproperty sought tobe affected by theproceedings toenteranappearance without anyformality orpriorleaveoftheCourt.It,therefore,followsthat 0.12, r 24.which makes provision thatadmiralty actionsin rem 35 canbedefended byanypersonnotnamed in thewntafterthey file an affidavit of interest attached to their appearance, does not 191 D e m e t r i a d e · J. Scheepswerf v. Ship Algazera

(1987)apply in Cyprus In any event, 0 75, r 17, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which came into force in the United Kingdom after 1960, are not applicable in Cyprus (see, in this respect, Asimenos ν Paraskeva,

(1982)1 C L R 145 161 and Pitna Shipping Enterpnses Inc u Georghiou

(1982)1 C L R 358 365) 5 I,therefore, feel that 'Cense'were, underr 35 ofour Admiralty Rules, entitled to appear and defend the action as persons interested in the res Itis, however, another matter whether they have proved theirinterestinher and/orownership of theship 10 Having found thatthesubmission of theplaintiffs thattheaction isundefended cannotstand, the first issue thatcalls for decision is whether the ship, after her construction and delivery to the "owners" was registered and if so in which country, in whose name and under what nameand flag 15 During the heanng of the action the plaintiffs attempted to produce a number of documents,one of which was a photocopy of the alleged registration of the ship Production of this document, photocopy of which was also in the possession of the Master of the ship (PW 5)when theship was arrested whilst lying 20 attheport of Limassol, and which ispartof folio exhibit No 2, was objected to by counsel for the defendants but after heanng arguments I decided to accept it as exhibit No 6 in the proceedings. Thisdocument,which isinEnglish andArabic, bears the photos of the two owners and the stamp of the «Sea Ports 25 Authonty» of the EmirateofAbu Dhabiand isdescnbed in Eng'ish as -^Ship's Registration Certificate» Thenames of the owners, the tonnage of the ship, her length, breadth and depth, descnbed η thisdocument,allcorrespondwith theparticulars of theshipgiven in the «Builders Certificate» issued by the plaintiffs 30 Assuming, however, that I was wrong in accepting this document,this,inmy mind,makes nodifference tomyconclusion thattheship was infact registered inAbu Dhabiby herowners Mr Abuzeid and Mr Al-Sahy, as the defendants in para 1 of their Answer admit para 7 of the Petitionwhich reads 35 «The shipowners registered the vessel in theirjoint names 192 1 C.L.R. Scheepswerf v. ShipAlgazera Demetriade· J. under the flag of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi under the name 'ALGAZERA' or 'ALJAZEERA'. Inany event thevessel was carved or marked with the name 'ALGAZERA'». Itistrue that the defendants bypara 2 of theirAnswerdeny the contents ofpara 2ofthePetition bywhichtheplaintiffs allege that Mr.Abuzeid and Mr.Al-Sahyhadagreed totheconstruction ofthe shipbythe plaintiffs butthe evidence ofMr.Abuzeid on thispoint does corroborate the allegations ofthe plaintiffs and the evidence given byMr.Bodewes on their behalf on thisissue. 5 10 Inthelightoftheabove,IfindthattheshipwasregisteredinAbu DhabiinthejointnamesofMr.AbuzeidandMr.Al-Sahy,towhom Ishall hereinafter refer toasthe "owners". Thesecond issuethat callsfordecision iswhetherthe "owners" could transfer ownership in herbefore her price wasfully paid, in 15 other words, before the two cheques of Mr. Al-Sahy were honoured and any extras paid. This issue is related to the «ownership» of theship. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs gave to the "owners" the right to register the ship in their names. Itis, also, an undisputed 20 t-actthat both "owners'" signed exhibit No. 4 by which iney uau agreed with the plaintiffs that they were tobecome the ownersof theshipafter they had paid herfull priceplusextras. T h e question, therefore, thatarisesis:,Was_gne_pf the "owners" entitled to transfer to the other what he thought his share in the 25 ship was, without the consent of the plaintiffs and could the partner thatbought the sharesof the otherpartner inher, transfer the interest in the ship to another person, in the present case "Cerise"? Before, however, I deal with this issue, it is, in my view, 30 pertinenttofindoutand decide the following question: Which is theship thatwastransferredbyMr. Abuzeid to«Cerise»? According to the Bill of Sale, which was executed by Mr. Abuzeid and which is exhibit- No. 10 before me, what was transferred to «Cerise» was a ship bearing the name «AL 35 JAZEERA", which was registered in Muscat in 1979. The 193 Dcmetriadcs J . Scheepswerf v. Ship Algazera

(1987)description ofthisshipisgiveninthisexhibitwhichisappended to myjudgmentasAppendix B'. Comparing now the description of the ship as given in exhibit No. 10 with that appearing in the documents contained in folio exhibit No.2, inwhich photocopy of the "BuildersCertificate" is 5 alsoincluded, I find that thedescription oftheshipgiveninexhibit No. 10 does not tally with that of the ship constructed by the plaintiffs, as neither the length of the ship transferred to«Cerise», noritsmain breadth ordepth inholdfrom tonnagedecktoceiling amidship agree.There isno evidence before me that there wasa 10 transfer of the registration of the ship from Abu Dhabi to Muscat and since Ihave found that, on the evidence before me and the admission bythe defence intheir Answer, the shipwas registered inAbu Dhabi, it was, Ifind, the duty of the defence to prove that «ALJAZEERA» changed ownership or was registered in Muscat. 15 Thisthe defence failed to prove. Assuming, however,thatthe conclusion towhich Ihave arrived iswrong, it ismy further finding, having regard to exhibit No. 14 which is,according to the defence, the Registration Certificate of the ship «SHERRYJOY»,that the ship «ALJAZEERA»wasnever 20 transferred under the flag of Panama as in the said Registration Certificate, whichisappended tomyjudgmentasAppendix C the ship is described, under the heading «Previous Name»: «New Construction» and under the heading «Previous Nationality»: «Newconstruction». 25 Asitappearsfrom theevidence ofthecaptainof«ALJAZEERA» Mr.John French-Paris (P.W.5), after her construction and before her arrest, she sailed for quite some time. Therefore, her description as of «New construction» is utterly incorrect, in fact untrue. 30 The evidence adduced by the defence as to how the alleged transfer of thedefendant shipwaseffected, comes from Mr.Peter McHale (D.W.5), a solicitor practising in London. In giving evidence Mr.McHalesaidthatMr.Abuzeidwasintroducedtohim by a client of his firm and that after Mr. Abuzeid gave him the 35 particulars of the ship, the Bill of Sale was prepared and telexed instructions were given tohisfirm'scorrespondents inPanama to 194 1C U R . 5 Scheepswerf v.Ship Algazera Demetrladea J . effect the registration of «ALJAZEERA».Hisevidence, which isa lengthy one, shedsnolighttothe inconsistencies contained inthe variousdocumentstowhich Ihave earliermadereference and itis of no use tothe defence as itdoes not carrythe quality, authority and detail that was necessary in relation to questions for which clearanwerswere needed, namelywhythesaidinconsistenciesin the appended documents. Inthe result, I reject hisevidence as unreliable and evasive. Although I have come to the conclusion that the ship «AL 10 JAZEERA»,which wasbuiltbythe plaintiffs, wasnever registered in Panama, I feel that Ihave todeal with the issue of whether the "owners" could part withthe ownership of the ship inviewof the contents of exhibitNo.4 which I have earlier quoted. From the authorities on the subject of the transfer of the 15 property ofgoods from theseller manufacturer etc.tothe buyerit appears that the mere handing over of the goods by the seller to the buyer passes the property immediately unless a different intention appears from the termsof the contract of sale. In thf> present case, as it appears from the contents of exhibit 20 No.4, none of the contracting parties intended that any part or share inthe ship would passtothe purchasers («owners»)untilthe whole of the purchase price, plus value of extras, was paid. The handing over, therefore, of the «Builders Certificate» could notin _ __any_wayaffectjhe intention ofthepartieswhichisexpressed inthis 25 exhibit that the «owners» or either of them could^not,"until tull payment of what they owed to the plaintiffs, part with the ownership of the ship without the consent of the plaintiffs. Having found (a) that the one owner could not transfer to the other his share in the ship, (b) that the ownership of the ship 30 constructed by the plaintiffs wasnevertransferred to«Cerise»and (c)thattheshipwasneverregistered inPanama, Ipropose togive a summary of the case for the defence as regards the events that ledtothealleged agreement between the«owners»,bywhichMr. Abuzeidbought from Mr.Al-Sahyhisshareintheshipandofwhat 35 followed after thesigningoftheagreementwhichisexhibitNo. 11 before meand isappended tomyjudgment asAppendix D\ 195 Demctrlades J. Scheepswerf v. Ship Algazera

(1987)Mr.Abuzeid, whoisthemainwitnessforthedefence, saidinhis evidence that after the ship was delivered by the plaintiffs to the "owners",shesailedtoAbu-Dhabiandthatafter shearrived there the relations between him and Mr.Al-Sahy broke down because of disagreement as to proposed charterers of the ship and/or failuretofindany.Therewas,also,disagreementbetween themas tohissuggestion that they had tolengthen the ship. 5 After protracted discussions and negotiations Mr. Al-Sahy agreed to sell his share for £285,000.-Sterling. When this agreement wasreached, Mr.Abuzeid visited aLondon solicitor,a 10 certain Mr. Meade, who is D.W.3, and asked him to prepare a contract of sale. Two original contracts were then prepared and typed. Mr.Abuzeid met Mr.Al-Sahyinthe lobbyoftheLondon Hilton and both signed the contract. Mr.Abu Gosh (D.W.I) and Mr.Abu 15 Taha (D.W.2)signed as witnesses. After the contract was signed, the two witnesses left and Mr. Abuzeid and Mr. Al-Sahy went to the car of Mr.Abuzeid, which was parked outside in the street. There, Mr. Abuzeid took out of the luggage boot of hiscaraSamsonite case which contained the 20 money; they were in cash and in bundles of various currency denominations. They then got into the car, Mr.Al-Sahy counted the money and he left saying to Mr. Abuzeid to post him the contract. This was done because the copy or the other original which was prepared by the firm of Mr. Meade had mis-spellings 25 and it was not signed. Mr. Abuzeid then went to the Dorchester Hotel where he had photocopies of the contract made. On the following dayand after havinglunchwithMr.Meade,Mr.Abuzeid asked Mr.Meade tocertify thephotocopies astrue copies.AsMr. Meadewasinahurrytogetaway(hewasgoingonholidays),they 30 gotintothecarofMr.Meade,MrMeadetookouthisfirm'sstamp, hecomparedthephotocopieswiththesocalledoriginalandwhen he found out that they were true copies, he certified them astrue copies.After thisMr.AbuzeidwenttotheflatOfMr.Al-Sahybutas he did not find him there, he left and posted to him the original 35 contract. On advice, he later had the photocopies authenticated by a solicitor who is so authorised by the Foreign Office. The 196 1 CLR. Scheepswerf v.Ship Algazera Demetrtade·J . signature of this Solicitor was, on the 11th September, 1979, authenticated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. After this, he went to Mr. McHale for the transfer of the shipto«Cerise». 5 Mr. Abuzeid. in cross-examination, admitted that he was a declared bankrupt in Holland and that he served a term of imprisonment in Germany for dealing in stolen motor vehicles, which, however, he did not know that they were stolen. He alleged thatthe money hepaid toMr.Al-Sahyforhisshareinthe 10 ship was given to him by a cousin of hiswho lives in Abu-Dhabi and that thismoney he brought toEngland over aperiod of three month. The money, he said, wasgiven to him in Derams in cash and he then changed itto English Pounds. Asregardsthesharecapital of"Cerise"Mr.Abuzeidsaidthatits 15 capital is £750,000.-; that the shareholders are his wife, his brother, Mr. McHale and a certain Mr. Peterson; that the shareholders paid up the capital and that the money is not in a Bankbut isprivately heldbyhim.When hewasasked tosaywhat hemeant bythishe replied that he did not wish todisclose where 20 the money was. Having considered the above facts I find thatthestorygiven by the defence is concocted, unreliable and untrue and Idismiss it without hesitation. Before concluding, Iwould like to say that assuming that the 25 story given by Mr. Meade as to the certification by him of the contractofsaleexhibitNo^l-1istrue,thisbearsnoweightasto the genuineness ofthe signature of Mr.Al-Sahy. Inthe result, the plaintiffs succeed intheir claim and Ifind that they are entitled tojudgment in the sum of Dfls. 650,000.- or its 30 equivalent at to-day's rate of exchange in Cyprus Pounds, plus legalinterest and costs. Coststobe assessed bythe Registrar. Judament asper claim withcosts 197 Demetriadea Λ. Scheepswerf v. Ship Algazera

(1987)APPENDIX A The shipyard. Scheepewerf Bodewes Grunob.v. KorteBorgweg 1 atFoxhol,Groningen Holland?hereinafter called Yeard andthe messers: Suhell Hanna Masud ABUZEID.bom 22-1-43 atZarka, I Jordan, living at Dordrecbt, Dubbel Steynlean 178 and Abdul Mamid Mirza Ali Alsahy, bom 1948 at Bahrein. U.A.E. Nationality P.O.Box 6158, c/o Weltrado U.A.E. hereinafter calledOwners have by mutualagreed tothe following: 5 Clause 1 Owners declare tohave instructed theyard with, likewisetheyard 10 declares to have accepted the construction and delivery of a double screw reefer coaster. Chause 2 The yard shall build and deliver the ship according class requirements of G.L., unrestricted trade 100 A 1 ROandwith the 15 - belonging class certificates. The dimensions of the ship willbe as follows: Length o.a Abt. 41.98 m. » p.ρ » 36.50m. Breath o.a. » 7 50m. 20 The ship to be equipped with two off G.M. propulsion engines of 455 M.P. each, Clause 3 . Inthe contract price is calculated a basic price for the total reefe plant, installation and insulation. Clause 4 The yard has todeliver theship atthe portof Delfzijl, four months after receiving the second installment, exepted always for strikes lock out of employees, fire explosions unforeseen circumstances of whatever nature, beyond the control of the' yard or 30 subcontractor suppliers. 198 25 1C.L.R. Clause 5 Theagreed pncesfortheshipisDfl 3,700,000 -say Threemillion seven hundredthousandguilders andwillbe paid as follows 1st Instalment. 30% aftersigningthecontract 5 2nd » Dfl 850 000 - InNovember 1978 3rd » Dfl 300 000,- InDecember 1978 4th instalment Dfl 850000,-afterasatisfactorytnal triphasbeen madeandthevesselis delivered togetherwiththeclasscertificates to 10 theOwner Clause 6 The ship orbelongings parts willbe theproperty of theOwner to the maximum the height of theinstallmentspaid by the Owner Clause 7 15 Theyard has the nght to make some variations inthe drawings if thisisbettertotheirandtotheclassopinions Clause 8 ιne snip will be build ;n accordance Lvi*h the hereto belonqings mini specification datedJune 1978 andsigned by both parties 20 Clause 9 This contract is valid under the General Conditions if the scheepsbouwveronigmg Hoogezand Drawn up ingood faith, read and approved atGroniggen,3 July 1978 25 Owners; 1.Name Abdul HamidAleahi 2.NameSuheilHanna Resud Abuzeid. 199 200 CHEESWR1CHT, HURLY I CO. N o t a r i e s Public C o a n l s s l o n e r · lor Oath· 2/3 Phllpot Lane, London EC3H 8AQ Telephone: 01 613 9477 Telex; 8B3B06 TO ALL TO VHOH t h e s e presents a h o l l cone, 1 ANTHONY JACK BURGESS of the C i t y of London Notary Public by Royal Authority duly admitted anil ewotn DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of the dnte hereof I we· present and did B e e SUIIEIL ABUZEID, named and d e s c r i b e d In the foregoing B i l l of S a l e of the Motor Ship "AL JAZEERA", duly s i g n s e a l and d e l i v e r the •aid B i l l of Sale and that the s i g n a t u r e " S . Abutι;Id* t h e r e t o subscribed 1 · of the own true and proper handwriting o[ the s a i d SUIIEIL ABUZEID; AND I DO FURTHER CERTIFY t h e t the •aid SUIIEIL ABUZEID declared unto se that on the day of the date hereof he was the l e g a l owner of the said Motor Ship "AL JAZEERA" and a i such had the right to s e l l the same and that the s a i d Hotor Ship was free froo encumbrance*. IN FAITH AND TESTIMONY whereof I the aald Notary have subscribed «y nana» and s e t and af f l s e d ay s e a l of Office at London a f o r e a a l d t h i s t w e n t i e t h d*y of Eeptenber One thouaaod nine hundred and •eventy n i n e · Ct^> t y \ r *A. -. - .. : - Μ . · / A-, \ 'iλ' 201 cUbl·*^ β»t'j .ν,*.y NAMEAND ADDRESS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE" FRANCO Υ FRANCO PREVIOUS NAME: NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILT IN: IDATE HOLLAND j NEW CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS NATIONALITY: NWEANDADDRESSOFCOMPANYREEPONSABLEFORRADIO EXPENSES* THE PROPRIETORS D: BUILDERS: SHEEPSWERF BODEWES GRUNO 1979 B.V. FOXHALL GRONINCEH..1QLLAND OWNERS NAME ANDADDRESS: "CERISE MARITIME COMPANY Ξ.Α." "SHERRY JOY" NAME OF THE VESSEL: Inaccordancewith therequirementsestablished by theOrdinanceNo.8, dated the 12thofJanuary 1925,theregistration requested inForm No. 8562,dated the 19thofSeptemberof1979,hasbeenapprovedby thisoffice. Therefore,thePanamaMerchantMarine Registry herebyGRANTSANDAUTHO­ RIZES thisProvisionalRegistration ofNavigation Certificate tothe Vessel,whoseparticulars aredescribedbelow,andwhichwillbeused exclusively forGENERALCARGO. (DRY) PARTICULARSOFTHE"VESSEL REPUBLICOFPANAMA MINISTRYOFFINANCEANDEXCHEQUER GENERALCONSULAR DIRECTIONAND OFVESSELS NATIONALMERCANTILEMARINE PROVISIONALWARRANTOFNAVIGATION TV FISHING OF TONNAGE Dry cargo in GENERAL KIND OF SERVICE UNDER DECK GROSS 228.29 NET 87.23 FEES: L I 2 . 13750-A DEL 1 «1/9/79 *"*"" NAME AND SIGNATURE ISSUED Nineteenth ft9)September, 1979 PANAMA I N MONTH DAYYEAI: SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE UNDERSIGNED GCERALOCNSUIARDIRECTORANDyVESSELS TITLE VALID UNTIL E i g h t e e n t h MB) M a r c h , 1980 MONTH IiAY YEAR SPEED OF THE'VESSEL:12Knots HORSE POWER: 455 BtIP The present Provisional Registration Certificate International Service should be cancel and subi;tituited by another one in cases that are described on the reverse of this document. BRAND OR NAMEOF MANUFACTURERS: GENERAL MOTORS 16V -71Ν PROPULSION SYSTEM MIXED NUMBER ANDTYPEOF CYLINDERS: 1STCLASS 2ND CLASS 3RDCLASS PASSENGERS Two

(2)Motors 16V -71Ν t LIGUID CARGO LENGTH 41.91 MTS BREADTH 7.60 MTS DEPTH 3.45ΜΤΞ MAIN MEASUREMENTS TYPE ANDNUMBER OF ENGINES: Yes DRY CARGO Steel DECKS One MASTS One FUNNEL One KINDOF SERVICE GIVEN BY THE VESSEL MATERIALOFTHEHULL NUMBER OF: to -t M'.tJlli Κ MLHt ANTE NACIllS \L £ J . ^ Λ ;.. IfKJ'UlQjrA Di: PANAMA ,,κ \ •;' - Μ Ι Λ Τ Τ ^ ' Ο ΙΙΑΠΓΛΠΑ V TFXIHO " ttRiuuM.vsrkAi. n E C o w n t i ι ni:.\*vis f &6g I"— 'JvO UWA HULAWPA ScTIEMBRE. AC£R0 ι · ι . Ο Ι 1 C »1CO Ϊ979 ι 4< 7 AO 41 9/ LOS PR0PIE7ARIUS >»»AltLt O I L » ( • H1I m i ί r.y 9* ;??£.?? ! % 1 '*Ά »*.*/ GKi/;/IWE.'.'./HILA:.;· \ >/?f |»«JOfUin»i«. IfuXHAil | C O » I . . U ( I O B I · . ^HtLi'i-- " • I I LlCAC » UO**ltlt< FRANCO Υ FRA.YO) -. η , , . Ι ν · · •^•.nrl . ,>, f ._CARGA GENERAL „ . iSFCA) -.•ι» . . c u l f'-α .i "CERISf «ARITIiiE CO.MPAWV S . A . lO · C?0*-iC» ΟATOS DC 1DENT|( IC *C'OM DC L.» N*VC KUEl'A C0NSTPI/CCT0W I N t C I O - I ' L I C l D Oil I » l » U » ( l C O " I T n u i D O tΜ 19 MiEVA CONSTKUCCWN IfiTt 4IO* " SHFRRV 201 " • * 0 * * » M L Π ι LA p«AVC Γ . η , tin . ^SE^VICIOIMEP-NACIOSAI, PATE^TE I'RuVlSKlNAL DL NAVLCACION Dejcui'rto *l cumpliiiienio d» 101 "aunii-')s eiiipuiMot en<i Lev EJ de l? dt c i n o dc 1925.spiobadus oor l i Dili genci* do Mji'icul· tir, , J5o? rir >9 m SCULEiiEiiE dr 1 9 ? _ 2 _ . r*DCd da Dot eita C i c i r j SE AUTOPIZA Υ CONCEDEJb n>ir r j y . i c j r j c i f iiUCJiie deii'i»" * con'.irwjoon y l i CUJI t t d t d i c i u oclunvjnx-nic ft service n,CARGj G^Vt SAL (f p.oenlt PAIENTE PROVISIONAL DE NAVECAClONpjr* ipdoi lot <<nei irtpccitvotauc otoigf c: fltij'j:ro dr U Minna Uc-unit Oe If Republic* de Panamt. HU-Atll It. L-L.Ab.ALI' C»nn.oioc r u r a u 455 BtfP GENERAL CAKGA SECA EW D l i t Β V IC IO DC [ ..-..ι i»"^i^ VEHtCNOSi Π0,. ,iL. 1 H1EDIO* CL·' 137ΪΡ-Α\VEL J9/9/7? ί, » t | ι ·••- "·*» ^ " ' i i ·*- v , •" ^ 2 2 £ Γ Ϊ - ' " •ι|>ιι,>Γ,"»"Π)'' fl'-^Lr' ΒΟΚΙΒΙ1 Τt ' i V * n ( L / • • •/ • PIECIKUEVE 1.9)PESEVTEMBREΡΕT979 M V 1 « . . « l t * o * „ . « L . . : . . - " ! " " vhmb*"(kNEULw: COUSULHCV PE f r t ^ ; / ^ ^ - ·: Ί Ι Μ Ι Ύ , Ι ' 1 t i . ' V d n ' 1 ' I t d i i J ' T ( , ' I . j · ' l n | f . l ( i " l ' J . /. r "W '••'>>· t .—I - .ιΊ > il •.•ij •••. I,Λ-WHI.I· π·. >·ιι > >. I- · te docum t i l ο L> picienie Pitt-nit Proviliun-I deb* it- cinctUi» ν sutiituitl* por.ov» en lot c t w i q u f ».oeic.-iben»li c v t i » d*uv U NUOUS Μ A B C * Ο Ν Ο Μ Ι Κ Ε Ot I B I' » 1 « I C « » I H V l L O C I O A D DC L * » » V t , \6V-7W CENERAL MOTORS H g M I H O V T i r o C I CILino w o t fti:«DC

(2)UOTQRES 16V-71H SISTEMA DE PROPULSION VOS CLtlt. ;i»it CLI1C. ei ·»ι 1*. I'.o SA. **0 C L A 1 I VN U X C O Oil« * β « Ι Μ * » 0 M O Τ Ο Κ Ε f SI CUAIt. 1A SERV1CIO ' O U £5E D E D I C * «IM>n L(.ι · " -I r· -r t .. Demetrlades J. Scheepswerf v. ShipAlgazera

(1987)I, ABDUL-HAMID MIRZA AL-SAHI of Welltrade Abu-Dhabi. Dalma Centre. Hamdan Street.Abu-Dhabi.UnitedArabEmirates. hereby acknowledge receiptof thesum of£288.888 88 (beingthe Sterling equivalent of 1 3 milliongilders atanexchange rateof 4 5 gilders tothepound)from Suheil Abuzeid of 'Hadleigh' Sandown 5 Road, Esher, Surrey. England in full and final payment for all my shares in the motor vessel ΆΙ-Jazeera' registered in Abu-Dhabi. UA Ε under number 412 and Iconfirm that all such shares are totally unencumberedand that MrAbuzeid is now the full owner of all theshares in the said ship JQ Ifurther confim that the transfer of these shares does not in any way affect the various cheques that have been issued by me to Harry Bodewes (Shipbuilders) which 1undertake to pay and I confirm that! shall not in any way seek reimbursement from Mr Abuzaid in respect of any expenses or other outgoings incurred 15 prior tothe date hereof 1understand the nature of this receipt that is being signed by me and thatitis fully legally binding and may be used as evidence of this transaction in the laws of any country in which proceedings may be commencedrelating tothisship 20 Signed ABDUL-HAMIDMIRZAAL-SAHI (Vendor) Witnessed by: Signed: 25 SUHEILABUZEID (Purchaser) Witnessed by: 206