The appellant, Mr Anele Ngqukumba, was a taxi operator in Mthatha, Eastern Cape. In February 2010, his motor vehicle (a Toyota Hi-Ace) was seized by the South African Police Service while parked at the Golden Egg Taxi Rank, Mthatha, in the possession of his employee. The police suspected the vehicle had been stolen. Upon inspection, the police claimed that: (a) the chassis plate had been tampered with and appeared to have been removed from another vehicle and superimposed on the appellant's vehicle; (b) the vehicle's original engine number had been ground off; and (c) the manufacturer's tag plate appeared to have been removed from another vehicle and superimposed on the appellant's vehicle. The appellant disputed these findings and applied to the Eastern Cape High Court for an order declaring the search, seizure and continued detention of his motor vehicle unlawful and for restoration of possession to him. The high court found the seizure unlawful but declined to order restoration of the vehicle to the appellant. It instead authorized the police to retain the vehicle subject to the appellant complying with the provisions of the National Road Traffic Act. The court ordered each party to pay its own costs. The appellant was granted leave to appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
The binding legal principle established is that a person is not entitled to restoration of possession under the mandament van spolie (or any other remedy) where such possession would be without lawful cause and would constitute a criminal offence under section 68(6)(b) read with section 89(3) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. No court may order the restoration of a motor vehicle whose engine or chassis number has been tampered with, as possession of such a vehicle is absolutely prohibited by statute and constitutes a criminal offence, regardless of whether the person seeking restoration is the owner or was previously in lawful possession. Courts cannot lend their imprimatur to illegalities or compel any person (including the police) to commit illegalities. The principle that restoration is not possible where it would result in unlawful possession applies equally to spoliation claims as it does to claims under section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The Court observed that the decision in Ivanov v North West Gambling Board 2012 (6) SA 67 (SCA) was wrong insofar as it held that the appellant in that case was entitled to unqualified restoration of possession of gambling machines even though possession thereof constituted a contravention and criminal offence under the National Gambling Act. The Court noted that ordering restoration of the vehicle would be no different than ordering a person to be restored to possession of heroin or a machine gun which they may not lawfully possess. The Court also commented that a legally admissible defence to a mandament van spolie application is that restoration of possession is not possible because possession by the spoliated person would be unlawful and constitute a criminal offence. The Court noted that in motion proceedings, factual disputes must be determined on the basis of the Plascon-Evans principle, and there was no suggestion that the respondents' version regarding tampering with the vehicle's identification numbers was far-fetched or untenable.
This case is significant in South African jurisprudence for clarifying the interaction between the mandament van spolie (spoliation remedy) and statutory prohibitions on possession of property. It establishes that the mandament van spolie, while ordinarily requiring only proof of peaceful possession and unlawful deprivation without regard to lawful title, is subject to an exception where restoration would result in possession that is criminally unlawful. The case reinforces that courts cannot and will not make orders that compel illegalities, even in the context of vindicating rights against unlawful state action. It confirms the binding authority of the principle established in cases like Marvanic, Pakule and Tafeni that section 68(6)(b) of the National Road Traffic Act creates an absolute prohibition on possession of vehicles with tampered identification numbers, which no person or authority (including courts) can override. The judgment also provides guidance on when an appeal court should interfere with costs orders of a court of first instance, emphasizing deference to the trial court's exercise of discretion where neither party achieved substantial success.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate