The case of Kama Metal (Kama Metal Trading LLC) and Maersk deals with conflicting claims over the delivery of a shipment that was loaded on September 29, 2025, in Mombasa, Kenya, and sent to Penang, Malaysia. This shipment included three containers for which Maersk issued a Bill of Lading on November 1, 2025, naming Kama Metal as the consignee.
Conflicting Claims and Legal Challenges
On the same day the Bills of Lading were issued, the delivery of the shipment to Kama Metal did not occur because the sender claimed to still hold interests in the cargo. On December 3, 2025, Kama Metal's lawyers sent a letter to Maersk requesting delivery of the cargo based on usual principles and stated that Kama Metal, as the legal consignee, holds all relevant copies of the Bill of Lading.
Read more: Reduction in China's Oil and Gas Demand Outlook until 2026
On December 19, 2025, the sender filed a lawsuit against Maersk's Kenya branch and also against Kama Metal. The sender sought an injunction to prevent the release and delivery of the cargo, claiming that he is either the unpaid seller of the cargo or acting as an unpaid partial seller.
Impact of English Civil Procedure Laws
According to English civil procedure laws, Maersk sought guidance from the commercial court of the country to determine to whom the cargo should be delivered. The court, citing legal principles, decided that Maersk must deliver the cargo to Kama Metal. This decision was based on the fact that Kama Metal, as the holder of the Bill of Lading, has the legal right to delivery.
This case is significant not only for Maersk but also for other shipping companies. By utilizing this rule, shipping companies can easily approach the court in similar cases and prevent the delivery of cargo to the wrong party. This decision provides shipping companies with assurance that they can act with greater confidence when faced with conflicting claims.
However, the risk of incorrect cargo delivery still exists and may occur in situations where the shipping company is unaware of the risks. In the case of Motis Exports, the court decided that the damages resulting from the delivery of cargo based on a fraudulent Bill of Lading would be the responsibility of the cargo owner, even if the cargo owner was unaware of its fraudulent nature.
Read more: Hamid Reza Azizi Farsani Emphasized the Importance of Liquid Fuel Storage for Power Plants · New Times Shipbuilding Company Chooses TMC to Equip Eight Large Maersk Vessels
