Court holds police minister liable after VW Golf stripped in SAPS custody

Judge: police failed to safeguard vehicle held as exhibit

The Minister of Police was held civilly liable after a woman’s 2014 Volkswagen Golf was returned from police custody without its engine, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria found. The court concluded the South African Police Service (SAPS) did not meet its duty to protect property seized or stored as an exhibit at the SAPS 13 storage facility in Pretoria West.

Key facts of how the vehicle entered and left custody

The vehicle was taken into police custody in May 2022 after it was lent to a friend who allegedly reported a hijacking. Warrant Officer Warren Timothy Bishop said he recovered the Golf in Laudium on 24 May 2022, and that at that time the car was in working condition and had an engine, although it lacked a battery. A security officer at the SAPS 13 facility, Mogadi Mashap Mashala, confirmed the vehicle was booked in with its engine fitted.

When owner Suzette Ropafadzo Paradza and her husband, Selestian Osiele, returned to collect the car in September 2022, they could not locate it easily and were unable to obtain the keys. The vehicle was towed to a mechanic, who found the bonnet wired shut and the engine missing. The couple reported the missing engine and returned the vehicle to the police storage facility.

Inspection and missing parts

An inspection carried out by Paradza’s witness, Albert Chibuike, about three years after the vehicle had been booked into police custody, found the engine missing and multiple other components removed or tampered with. The components listed as missing included the gearbox, water pump, flywheel, alternator, starter and manifold; the bumper had been removed and parts such as the cooler, regulator fan and catalytic converter were absent.

Chibuike testified that removing all these components would take between one and two days, and said in his view the work had not been performed by a specialist. The judge did not accept his testimony as formal expert evidence, but did accept his 29 years of industry experience and his evidence about the likely time required to strip the vehicle.

Police records and testimony

The court examined discrepancies in police records about when the vehicle was returned to the storage facility after the attempted collection. Warrant Officer Kenneth Benjamin Brauns stated the vehicle was booked back into the system on 5 September 2022 without an engine or gearbox, but he could not say exactly when the vehicle had physically been returned because he acted on instructions from Captain Hoskins, who did not testify.

The judge accepted that the evidence supported a conclusion the vehicle had been returned on 1 September 2022, and that recording delays could account for the differing dates recorded in the system.

Duty of care and court findings

The court emphasised that police have a legal duty to protect property seized or held in their custody because such property may have to be returned when criminal proceedings do not require continued retention. The judgment recorded that the vehicle had an engine when taken into custody but was returned without one, and concluded:

“The defendant clearly failed in its duty of care in safekeeping the vehicle pending the release to the plaintiff.”

The judge also criticised the conduct of personnel at the storage facility, describing their assistance to members of the public as lax. The court heard that Paradza and Osiele struggled to find the vehicle and obtain its keys when they arrived to collect it, and that the officer responsible for completing the release documentation had not physically inspected the car before issuing the exit permit.

Indemnity signed on release and public policy

A central dispute in the case concerned an indemnity form Paradza signed when the vehicle was released. The document recorded that she received the vehicle in good condition and attempted to exempt the police and government from liability for related claims. Warrant Officer Ronald Malesela Mashiachidi testified he had explained the documents to Paradza and that she signed both the vehicle release record and the indemnity.

The judge accepted that the indemnity was written in clear terms and that there was no evidence Paradza had been physically forced to sign. However, drawing on the Constitutional Court’s decision in Barkhuizen v Napier, the court considered whether enforcing that indemnity would be consistent with public policy and constitutional values such as fairness and justice. The judge found that Paradza was not on equal footing with the officials handling the release and that she had received little assistance while trying to recover her property.

“It would be unfair and unjust to hold the plaintiff bound to the indemnity.”

Outcome and next steps

On these grounds the court concluded Paradza had established her claim against the Minister of Police and ordered the minister to pay proven damages and the costs of the application. The amount of compensation was not determined in the hearing; the court postponed the assessment of damages indefinitely.

Why this ruling matters

This judgment underscores that when state authorities take custody of private property, a legal duty exists to safeguard it and to provide reasonable assistance to owners seeking its return. It also illustrates a court balancing clear contractual language in a signed indemnity against broader constitutional principles and the factual circumstances in which documents were signed.

The final amount to be paid to Paradza will be fixed in separate proceedings.