(1989)1989August 11 [DEMETRIADES.J) ABDUL HAMIDAL SAM, Plaintiff, v. THESHIP«ALGAZERA»,NOWLYINGATTHEPORTOFLIMASSOL, Defendant. (Admiralty Action No. 300/79). Admiralty —Action for adeclaration thatplaintiff isthe owner of certain number ofsharesin theship*AL GAZERA», possessionofsuchship, anaccount and Judgment for any sum thatmay befound due. Inthelightoftheevidenceandtheview,whichtheCourttookasto the credibility of witnesses, the Court found that the version of the 5 defendant cannot stand; however, the property in the ship never passedtotheplaintiff or defence witnessAbuzeid,becausethe price for her construction was not paid in full. The plaintiff was simply entitledto beregisteredasowneroftheshipofsomuchpercentages of her as corresponding to the money he contributed for her 10 construction. The plaintiff is also entitled to US $30,000 paid for bunkersfor the ship tosailfrom Rotterdam toAbuDhabi. Declaration as aforesaid respecting ownership. Judgment for US Dollars 30,
- Costsin favour of Plaintiff. 15 \ d m i r a l t y action. Admiraltyaction foradeclaration thattheplaintiff istheowner jf51/64th or71/100thsharesofthedefendantship«AlGazera». St. Mc Bride with E. Psillaki (Mrs.), for the plaintiff. E. Montanios with D. Hadjihambis and P. Panayi (Miss), for 2 0 the defendant. Cur. adv. vult. 482 1CX.R. AlSahiv.Ship«Algazera» DEMETRIADcS J. read the following judgment. By his action the plaintiff claimsagainstthe defendants A.Adeclaration of the Courtthatheisthe ownerof51/64th or 71/100th shares ofthe defendant ship«ALGAZERA». 5 B.Possession of the defendant ship«ALGAZERA». C. An account of all earnings of the defendant ship «AL GAZERA»during her trading between the time of completion of thesaidshipandherarrestinCyprus,andoftheamountduetothe plaintiff inrespect thereof. 10 D. Payment of the amount found due to the plaintiff on the taking of the above account and interest thereon atsuch rate and for such period as the Court shall think fit under the British Law Reform (MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1934applicableinCyprus. E.Anyfurther orother relief. 15 F.Interest. G.Costs. The facts that led to the present action are, in brief, the following: -In 1978a certain Mr.Abuzeid, Defence WitnessNo. 2, and the 20 plaintiff entered into awritten agreement (datethe3rdJuly, 1978 - exhibit No. 1) with the ship building firm of Scheepswerf Bodewes-Gruno of Foxhol Holland, hereinafter to be referred to asthe«firm»,bywhichthelatterundertook tobuildforthemaship in accordance with specifications and terms described in the said 25 agreement.Thepriceagreedfortheconstruction ofthevesselwas 3,700,000 D. Fls. When this contract was signed; the ship was alreadyunder construction asMr.Abuzeidhad earlierenteredinto anagreementwiththefirmforherconstruction andhadthenpaid on account ofherprice the sumof D.Fls. 1,200,
- 30 Itisan admitted fact thatonthedayexhibitNo. 1 wassignedby thepartiestheplaintiff paid tothefirm thesum ofD.Fls.800,000 and that at a later date he made a further payment of D. Fls. 800,
- Later on, the plaintiff paid on account a further sum of 400,000D.Rs.andsignedtwochequeseachforthesumofD.Fls. 35 325,000payable tothe order ofthe firm. After the ship was constructed and before its full price was settled,byanagreemententeredbetweenthepartip* theshipwas 483 DcmetriadesJ. ΑΙSahlv.Ship«Algazera»
(1989)allowed tosail -.o Abu DhabiintheUnitedArab Emiratesforthe purpose of being registered thereinthenameof theplaintiff and Mr. Abuzeid. Theplaintiff ingivingevidence alleged thattofacilitate theship to sail to Abu Dhabi, he gave Mr. Abuzeid U.S. $30,000 for 5 bunkeringandotherexpenses. Thiswas deniedbyMr.Abuzeid. As thefull price of the vessel was not paid - thetwo cheques havingnotbeenhonoured-thefirmfiled intheAdmiraltyCourtof Cyprus Action No.271/79 by which theyclaimedthebalanceof the sale price. At the same timetheship, which was at thetime 10 anchoredatLimassol, was arrested.Thatactionwasdefended by CeriseMaritime Co.S.A., acompanyregisteredinPanama,which claimedownershipoftheshipalleging thattheyhadboughtitfrom Mr.Abuzeid.Theyfurtherclaimedthattheship,after thesale,was renamed«SherryJoy». Indefending thatactionCerisecalledMr.Abuzeid asawitness, who alleged thathehadboughtfrom theplaintiff hisshareinthe shipby paying tohimincashthesumofSt.£285,000. Twoissueswere raised inthataction,namely(a)Whether,inthelightoftheprovisionsofthecontractentered 20 between the plaintiff, Abuzeid and the firm, the plaintiff could transfer hissharetoanybody;and (b) theveracity of theevidence of Mr.Abuzeid thathehadpaid theplaintiff thesum mentioned above. Asregards thefirst issue Ifoundthattheownershipoftheship, 25 sinceitsfull pricehadnotbeenpaidtotheyard,hadnotpassed to theplaintiff orMr.Abuzeid andthattheplaintiff wasnotentitledto transferhisshare. As regards thesecond issue, I found thatthestory given bythe defence was concocted,unreliable anduntrueandI dismissed it 30 withouthesitation. Thereasonsformysaidfindings aretobefoundatpages 195197 of the
(1987)1C.L.R. inwhich thejudgment I delivered in Admiralty Action No.271/79 appears,startingatp. 186. Itistobenotedthatnoappealwas filed againstmydecisionand 35 thatasaresulttheproceedsofthesaleoftheshipwere paidtothe 484 15 1C.L.R. ΛΙSahiv. Ship«Algazera» DemetrladesJ. plaintiff in Action No. 271/79 in part satisfaLtion of the judgment debt inthataction. Inthelightoftheabove andhaving heardtheevidence adduced by the defendants in this action, who are the same as those in 5 Action No. 271/79,1 hold thattheirdefence must fail. Having reached the above conclusion, Iam at a loss to what judgment theplaintiff is entitled. Having carefully considered the matter, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff would have been entitled to a 10 declaration that he was entitled to be registered as owner of so muchpercentagesharesoftheshipasitrepresentedthemoney he contributedtowards thevalue of theship.Further,theplaintiff,the evidence of whomIacceptonthisissue, isentitledtojudgment for U.S. $30,000 which he paid for bunkers for the ship to sail from 15 Rotterdamto Abu Dhabi. Inthe result, therewillbe a declaration andjudgment in favour of the plaintiff as above. As regards costs, I have come totheconclusion thatsince atthe time of the filing of this action and the completion of its hearing 20 judgment in Admiralty Action No. 271/79 had not yet been delivered, theplaintiff is entitled tohis costs. Coststobe assessed by the Registrar. Declarationandjudgment in favour of plaintiffas above. 485