Limpopo High Court orders scrapyard to release car after dispute over 2021 towing fees

The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane has dismissed a scrapyard’s attempt to keep a customer’s vehicle over a dispute about towing and storage fees from 2021, and ordered the car released to its owner.

What the court decided

Judge Maake Kganyago dismissed Bravopro, trading as Mooketsi Scrapyard’s application to rescind an earlier order that required the scrapyard to release the vehicle belonging to Madumi Moses Sivhula. The dispute related to the vehicle being towed to the scrapyard after an October 2021 vehicle accident.

Background to the fee dispute

The vehicle was insured by Old Mutual, but Bravopro was not one of Old Mutual’s authorised towing service providers. Bravopro invoiced Old Mutual for more than R23,000 before it would release the vehicle. Old Mutual disputed the amount and paid R7,920.00, which it said was a reasonable charge under industry norms, and placed security for the remaining >R15,000 in its attorney’s trust account. Bravopro nevertheless refused to release the vehicle unless the full invoice was paid, prompting Sivhula to approach the High Court.

Earlier ruling and scrapyard’s rescission bid

In the original proceedings, Acting Judge Makweya found that Sivhula and Old Mutual had paid for the towing and storage services and that Bravopro had failed to release the vehicle. The court ordered the scrapyard to release the vehicle to Sivhula and Old Mutual. Bravopro later sought to have that order rescinded, arguing it had discovered documents showing the vehicle had been released earlier to Soutpansberg Auto Body Repairs.

Documents offered by the scrapyard

Bravopro relied on a repair quotation allegedly approved by Old Mutual and a client satisfaction clearance it said showed the vehicle had been repaired and released to Sivhula. The scrapyard argued the earlier judgment would have been different had those documents been available at the time.

Court’s reasoning for dismissal

Judge Kganyago found the newly discovered documents did not meet the stringent requirements to rescind a final judgment. The court said Bravopro should have been able to produce its own records identifying who collected the vehicle and when it was released.

“There should be some release papers which the person who had collected the motor vehicle should have signed,”

the court said, adding that such records were expected to be in Bravopro’s possession. Instead, the scrapyard failed to provide any release documentation or to explain what had happened to its own records.

Emails contradicted scrapyard’s claim

The court also noted that an email relied upon by Bravopro suggested the vehicle was still at the scrapyard when First Assist requested an invoice for its release. Subsequent correspondence further indicated the vehicle had not yet been collected, undermining the scrapyard’s contention that it had already released the vehicle.

Case outcome

Judge Kganyago concluded the documents tendered by Bravopro were not the exceptional new evidence required to reopen a case decided on its merits. The court dismissed the rescission application and made no order as to costs.

Reporting based on IOL coverage.