Nongogo Guzana Incorporated v South African Police Services and Others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: B Hartle J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 2022
• Docket Number: EL 1191/2021
• Hearing Date: 10 February 2022
• Court: East London Circuit Local Division
• Citation: 2022 JDR 1724 (ECGEL)

Hartle J:

[1]

On 8 September 2021 this court granted a rule nisi in the following terms:

"1.

Dispensing with the forms and services provided in the Uniform Rules of the Court and directing that, this application is heard on urgent basis in terms of Rule 6 (12) (a).

2.

A rule nisi do issue with immediate effect calling on the 1st respondent to show cause on 22 September 2021 at 10:00 why the following order should not be granted:

2022 JDR 1724 p2

Hartle J

2.1

declaring that the applicant is the lawful owner of the motor vehicle described as a Toyota Fortuner with Chassis Number VIN AHTCB3GS602010684, Engine Number 2GDC657652 and bearing the Licence Number JJ83DMGP ("the vehicle").

2.2

The 1st respondent is hereby directed and/or authorized to restore possession of the motor vehicle described as a Toyota Fortuner with Chassis Number VIN AHTCB3GS602010684, Engine Number 2GDC657652 and bearing the Licence Number JJ83DMGP ("the vehicle") with immediate effect to the applicant.

2.3

The 2nd respondent is hereby interdicted and restrained from interfering with the applicant's possession directly or indirectly pending the determination of whatever claim, if any, that the 2nd respondent might have to the vehicle.

2.4

The 2nd respondent is ordered to hand over the spare keys and other items of the motor vehicle that are in his possession to the applicant.

2.5

The 3rd respondent is hereby interdicted and restrained from taking any steps that may facilitate registration of the motor vehicle into the name of the 2nd respondent or any person nominated by the 2nd respondent pending the determination of whatever claim, if any, that the 2nd respondent might have to the vehicle.

3.

Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are directed to operate as interim order pending the finalization of this application.

4.

Any of the respondent/s who opposes this application is ordered to pay the costs of this application on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved." (sic)

[2]

The question on the extended return date, when the matter came before me, was whether the rule could be confirmed.

[3]

Only the second respondent opposed the application

[4]

It is rather unusual that the applicant seeks confirmation of an interim order of the mandament van spolie and at the same time on motion a declarator of its ownership of the motor vehicle of which it claims to have...