Mveleli VA v King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality

The applicant owned a motor vehicle (JWB 010 EC) which he had purchased in August 2021 and operated as a taxi between Tsolo and Mthatha through his employed driver, Sibusiso Wadoni. On 14 July 2025, the vehicle was impounded by the respondent's traffic officers. The applicant alleged the vehicle was being parked at the Uncedo Taxi Association Rank when traffic officers demanded a R1000.00 fine for illegal parking and instructed the driver to drive to the municipal pound, threatening arrest. No traffic ticket was issued. The respondent contended that the vehicle was found illegally parked on Madeira Street (N2) near BP Garage, obstructing traffic on the far-right lane. Traffic officers demanded payment of the fine, and the driver voluntarily left the vehicle at the pound to fetch the money but never returned. The respondent relied on Regulation 305(6) of the National Road Traffic Act and Section 36(11) of the Municipality's Traffic By-Laws authorizing removal and impoundment of vehicles parked in contravention of traffic laws.

• Whether the applicant was in possession of the motor vehicle at the time of impoundment through his employee driver
• Whether the dispossession of the motor vehicle was unlawful for purposes of a spoliation order
• Whether the respondent's impoundment of the vehicle was authorized by statute
• Whether Regulation 305(6) of the National Road Traffic Act and Section 36(11) of the Municipal Traffic By-Laws authorized the removal and impoundment
• Whether the court should enforce a spoliation order that would perpetuate an illegal act or criminal offence

The application was dismissed with costs.

1. An employer retains possession of a vehicle driven by an employee for purposes of spoliation proceedings, as the employee exercises physical control on behalf of the employer and does not have animus possidendi. 2. No spoliation is committed where a person is lawfully deprived of possession by statutory authority. 3. Where a vehicle is parked in contravention of the National Road Traffic Act and Municipal Traffic By-Laws, thereby obstructing traffic and committing a criminal offence, Regulation 305(6) of the National Road Traffic Act authorizes traffic officers to remove and impound the vehicle. 4. Courts are constrained by the doctrine of legality to enforce valid legislation and cannot grant a spoliation order that would give legal effect to prohibited conduct or perpetuate an ongoing statutory contravention which is also a criminal offence. 5. The removal and impoundment of a vehicle used as an instrument to commit a traffic offence is consistent with Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which authorizes seizure of articles concerned in the commission of an offence.

The court observed that the applicant's reliance on Section 36(1) and (2) of the Municipal Traffic By-Laws regarding towing procedures was an afterthought, as no case was made out in the founding affidavit regarding double parking or towing. The court noted that an applicant in motion proceedings must stand or fall by the allegations in the founding affidavit, which forms the main foundation of the application and the facts which the respondent is called upon to affirm or deny. The court remarked that the driver cooperated with the traffic officers by voluntarily driving to the pound, and the issue of towing was therefore not a case the respondent was called upon to answer.

This case is significant in South African law for clarifying the limits of spoliation orders in the context of statutory enforcement powers. It establishes that spoliation relief will not be granted where the dispossession is lawfully authorized by statute, even where the despoiled person was in peaceful possession. The case reinforces the principle that courts cannot grant relief that would perpetuate an ongoing statutory contravention or criminal offence, emphasizing the doctrine of legality and the court's duty to enforce valid legislation. It also clarifies that an employer remains in possession of a vehicle driven by an employee for purposes of spoliation applications, but this does not entitle the employer to relief where the vehicle is being used to commit a criminal offence and is lawfully seized under statutory authority.