Dookie v Minister of Law and Order and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Page J
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1990
• Citation: 1991 (2) SACR 153 (D)
• Hearing Date: 06 November 1990
• Counsel: S D Slabbert for the applicant C B Mann for the respondent
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Page J:

In October, 1989, the applicant purchased from a person known to F him as L M Kweyama a 1985 Datsun E20 motor vehicle which was at that stage registered in the name of Kweyama under registration NUZ 4294. In the registration papers allegedly filled in by Kweyama, he stated that the vehicle had been acquired by him on 24 July 1989. Its engine number was given as 892023 and its chassis number as 018251, both of which corresponded to the numbers visible on the vehicle. The applicant put it G through the roadworthy test and it was registered in his name on 9 October 1989, with a number ND 169-671.

During December of 1989 the police inspected the vehicle and subsequently seized it as they allegedly suspected it of having been stolen. Since then, they have, despite demand, refused to release it. Their attitude was set out in a letter by the third respondent, as follows:

'The above-mentioned vehicle was properly inspected and it was H found that the engine, chassis and job numbers of the vehicle was (sic ) changed.

On investigation, it was also found that the vehicle was registered on false documentation.

The vehicle will not be handed back to your client.'

No one has been charged with the theft up to the present time.

In November 1990 the applicant instituted the present application I against the respondents in which he claimed the return to him of the vehicle. It was brought as a matter of urgency and originally he sought a rule nisi with interim relief. The matter has, however, now been fully canvassed so that there is no longer any necessity for a rule: if the applicant is entitled to return of the vehicle, he is entitled to an outright order to that effect.

The evidence adduced by the respondents in opposing the application (the factual basis of which is not, and cannot, be challenged) reveals J the following:

Page J

1 1.1

A The vehicle in question was manufactured by Nissan SA (Pty) Ltd. It was originally a panel van but had at some stage been converted to a 15-seater minibus.

1.2

The engine at present in the vehicle bears a date stamp 8B89 which shows that it was manufactured during 1989.

1.3

The engine number appearing on the engine is false. It is larger than that currently reached in the present series and B is also incomplete in that all genuine engine numbers for vehicles of the type in question end with the letter G. The original engine number has been filed off the block and irretrievably obliterated.

1.4

The chassis number appearing on the chassis is also false. No such number has been allocated by the manufacturer. Moreover, it appears on the chassis at a place other than that where C chassis numbers are stamped by the manufacturer.

2 2.1

On 1 December 1988 a 1984 Opel Sedan with engine number 165H25120932 was registered in the Transkei in the name of L F Zuma under registration XA5-432 and remains so registered.

2.2

There is in existence a forged Transkeian registration certificate which bears the serial number 5789. It has been utilised (with appropriate alterations) to secure D registration in this province of a number of different vehicles allegedly belonging to a number of different owners and allegedly registered in the Transkei under a number of different registration numbers.

2.3

One of the instances in which certificate...