Vehicle importer takes Minister, VID to court

Minister Joram Gumbo

Minister Joram Gumbo

Mashudu Netsianda, Senior Court Reporter
A vehicle importer has taken the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development Cde Joram Gumbo and the Vehicle Inspection Department (VID) to court seeking the release of an impounded kombi.

The vehicle was impounded in March this year while carrying schoolchildren without an operator’s licence.

Hoaxy Investments t/a Be forward Bulawayo, through its lawyers Dube-Tachiona and Tsvangirai Legal Practitioners, has filed an urgent chamber application at the Bulawayo High Court citing Minister Gumbo, VID and its Bulawayo depot manager, Mr Shelton Muzovi as respondents.

Hoaxy Investments is seeking an order compelling the respondents to immediately release a Toyota Hiace which was impounded from its client, Mr Nhlanhla Mpofu who had defaulted in paying monthly instalments for the vehicle. In his founding affidavit, Hoaxy Investments director Mr Dumisani Mutorera said his company entered into a hire purchase sale agreement with Mr Mpofu who wanted to buy the kombi.

According to the agreement of sale on hire purchase, Mr Mpofu was entitled to pay a 50 percent deposit of the cost price and the balance was to be settled over 12 months. Mr Mutorera said when Mr Mpofu defaulted in paying instalments, he filed summons at the Bulawayo magistrate’s court and a default judgment was granted in his company’s favour.

“I issued a warrant of execution on 30 May 2017 and instructed the messenger of court to proceed to VID for the attachment and subsequent removal of the vehicle as per my lawyer’s instructions.

“I was advised by the VID Bulawayo depot manager that he would not release the car unless I produce the vehicle’s registration book, storage fees and an operator’s licence,” he said. Mr Mutorera said he only offered to pay storage fees of $1 000.

“Despite the offer I made to pay the storage fees, I was also advised to produce an operator’s licence and I explained that I had no intention to operate the kombi as a public service vehicle but the VID depot manager refused to release the car,” he said.

Mr Mutorera said the actions of the respondents were financially prejudicing him as storage fees continued to accrue. He wants an order directing the respondents to release his vehicle. — @mashnets

Pin It
  • Thando Siziba

    HOAXY

  • makhosi

    At the time the vehicle was impounded HOAXY and Nhlanhla contract was operational, meaning Nhlanhla was given the rights to use the vehicle for whatever he sees fit as long as he paid the monthly installments. By default HOAXY is liable for any mishaps, though some relief can be paid by Nhlanhla by way of civil lawsuit.

    • Zviregedze Nkazimulo Ntuli

      Maybe Winnie Madikizela Mandela should have been South Africa’s first woman president.

    • MUTASAWAKAROKA

      By going to court to reclaim the vehicle looks like ownership had already been transferred to Mr Mpofu, otherwise nobody goes to court to claim what is his unless there is some resistance. Therefore Hoaxy is only liable for the expensies from the day ownership reverted to Hoaxy. VID should have gone to Court to register their interest in the car and prevent its going back to Hoaxy. Now they are illegality holding onto A’s property for the sins of B. VID should release the car to Hoaxy and find other ways to get their money from Mr Mpofu.

      • makhosi

        I beg to differ. 1. You should differentiate between ”ownership” and ”possession”. One give someone possession and not necessarily not ownership. Ownership involves registration.
        2. The car was the main accessory to the alleged crime. So it matters not to the VID who owns the car, but possession at the time.

        Hoaxy is playing the trick of summoning a high ranking official so that they by a default judgement. Interesting indeed.

  • the pastor

    vele mina angilandaba labo HOAXY laba. mina inkinga yami ikuVID. amasela okucina ngiyakutshlea.

  • the pastor 5

    edfewfwefwe

  • Eye witness

    Hoaxy should pay all that is owed VID and then go after Mpofu. On a tangent to the matter, for purposes of good grammar Mr. Mpofu was not entitled to pay 50 per cent, he had an obligation to pay. Parting with money is not entitlement reporter.