The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has held the Minister of Police liable for damages after a woman’s Volkswagen Golf was stripped of its engine and other components while in police custody.
Acting Judge Jacques Minnaar ruled that the South African Police Service (SAPS) had failed in its duty to safeguard Suzette Ropafadzo Paradza’s 2014 Volkswagen Golf while it was being held as an exhibit at the SAPS 13 storage facility in Pretoria West.
The court also found that an indemnity form Paradza signed when collecting the vehicle could not be enforced against her under the circumstances.
Paradza instituted a civil claim against the minister after discovering that the vehicle’s engine was missing and its keys could not be located when she and her husband, Selestian Osiele, went to collect it in September 2022.
The vehicle had been seized in May 2022 after Osiele lent it to a friend, identified as Ellen, who allegedly fabricated a hijacking story.
The investigating officer, Warrant Officer Warren Timothy Bishop, testified that he recovered the vehicle in Laudium on May 24, 2022. He said it was in working condition and had an engine, although its battery was missing.
A security officer at the storage facility, Mogadi Mashap Mashala, also confirmed that the vehicle was booked in with its engine fitted.
However, after struggling to locate the vehicle and obtain its keys, Paradza and Osiele arranged for it to be towed to a mechanic.
Osiele told the court that the mechanic discovered that the bonnet had been secured with wire and the engine was missing. Several other components were also found to have been removed or tampered with, including the gearbox, water pump, flywheel, alternator, starter and manifold.
The vehicle’s bumper had been pulled off, while the cooler, regulator fan and catalytic converter were also missing.
An inspection conducted by Albert Chibuike, who had 29 years of industry experience, indicated that stripping the vehicle of its components would take between one and two days. Although the judge did not accept his testimony as expert evidence, the court accepted his evidence regarding the time required to remove the components.
The court also examined discrepancies in police records relating to when the vehicle was returned to the storage facility after the unsuccessful collection attempt.
Warrant Officer Kenneth Benjamin Brauns testified that the vehicle was recorded as having been returned on September 5, 2022, without an engine or gearbox. However, he could not confirm when it had physically been returned, as he had acted on instructions from a superior officer who did not testify.
The judge found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the vehicle had been returned on September 1, 2022, with the delay in updating the system accounting for the difference in dates.
The court found that police had a legal duty to protect property seized or held in their custody, particularly where it might eventually need to be returned to its owner.
“The defendant clearly failed in its duty of care in safekeeping the vehicle pending the release to the plaintiff,” the judgment stated.
The judge also criticised the conduct of personnel at the storage facility, describing their approach to assisting members of the public as lax. The court noted that the officer responsible for completing the release documentation had not physically inspected the vehicle before filling in the forms and issuing an exit permit.
A key issue was an indemnity signed by Paradza when the vehicle was released. The document stated that she had received the vehicle in good condition and sought to exempt the police and government from liability for related claims or losses.
The court acknowledged that the document was clearly worded and that there was no evidence Paradza had been physically forced to sign it.
However, drawing on the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Barkhuizen v Napier, the judge considered whether enforcing the indemnity would be consistent with public policy and constitutional values, including fairness and justice.
The judge found that Paradza had approached the police to recover her property but received little assistance, leaving her at a disadvantage compared with the officials responsible for releasing the vehicle.
“It would be unfair and unjust to hold the plaintiff bound to the indemnity,” the judgment stated.
The court consequently ruled in Paradza’s favour and ordered the Minister of Police to pay her proven damages, as well as the legal costs of the application.
The amount of compensation has yet to be determined, with the assessment of damages postponed indefinitely.