IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE No: A 432/09
In the matter of 

and
THE PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER, SOUTH AFRICAN

THE STATION COMMANDER, SOUTH AFRICAN

JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 21 APRIL 2010

"Third Respondent shall allocate a new engine number and chassis number to the vehicle subject to due compliance with regulation 56 of the National Traffic Regulations, 2000."

The Contempt of Court:

Interpretation of the Court Order:

"In my view the mischief that the legislature sought to prevent in requiring a title holder to tender the vehicle in terms of Regulation 56(4) is to ensure that a thief after tampering with an engine and/or chassis number will not be able to tender the vehicle to the police for new numbers. It follows that Third Respondent is correct in insisting that the applicant must satisfy it by means of accurate records that it is the lawful title holder of the engine and/or chassis before it is issued with new numbers in terms of Regulation
56."

The Definition of Contempt of Court:

(4) SA 326 (SCA) at para [9] as follows:

The Onus of Proof:

The Finding:

The Additional Relief:

[12] However, that is not the end of the matter. The Appellant in its papers also asked for additional relief, namely:

Evaluation:

[15] It appears that the issue of the title holder has reached an impasse between the Appellant and the Third Respondent. It is common cause that Appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle as evidenced by the registration certificate. The uncontested evidence is that the body shell of the vehicle was replaced as far back as 1995 and the chassis plate was transposed to the new body shell. The vehicle was sold and transferred onward to five different owners and eventually acquired by the Appellant in June 2006. The Appellant thereafter replaced the engine with another second hand engine.

[16] When the vehicle was taken to Third Respondent for police clearance, it was seized in terms of section 21 read with section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The matter was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who declined to prosecute the matter. The Appellant has placed whatever facts and information were available to it at the disposal of Third Respondent in order to substantiate that it is the lawful owner of the vehicle. These facts and information have not been placed in dispute or gainsaid by evidence to the contrary.

[17] In my view it is only just and fair that an interdict be granted, in terms of prayer (d), in order to regularise the title-holdership of the vehicle and that Third Respondent be ordered to issue new chassis and engine numbers in respect of the vehicle with register number, PCW 456A and registration number CF 70733 belonging to the Appellant.

The Order:

[18]     In the result the following order should be made:

(1)	The relief sought by the Applicant in para's 2(a), (b) and (c) of its Notice of Motion is refused;
(2)	The Third Respondent is ordered immediately to issue new chassis and engine numbers in respect of the Applicant's motor vehicle with register number PCW 456A and registration number CF 70733;

(3)   The Respondents are ordered to bear the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved."

No order is made as to the costs of the appeal.

Thring, J: I agree and it is so ordered.

								W. G THRING

Veldhuizen, J: I agree.

							A.H. VELDHUIZEN