- A crash victim was denied his insured bakkie after a scrapyard refused to release it despite the insurer paying the undisputed towing costs.
- Bravopro claimed newly discovered documents proved the vehicle had already left its custody before the original court case.
- The High Court in Polokwane found the evidence fell short and dismissed the rescission application.
Madumi Moses Sivhula survived a motor vehicle accident in October 2021, but recovering his insured Isuzu KB300D bakkie became a legal battle that lasted years after a scrapyard refused to release the vehicle despite his insurer paying the undisputed towing costs.
Following the accident, Bravopro, trading as Mooketsi Scrapyard, towed the bakkie to its premises. Old Mutual challenged the scrapyard’s invoice of R23,241.50 as excessive and paid R7,920.05, which it regarded as a fair and reasonable amount for the towing and related charges. The insurer also lodged security for the disputed balance through its attorneys, but Bravopro refused to release the vehicle unless the full invoice was settled.
Sivhula approached the High Court in Polokwane, which ruled in his favour and ordered Bravopro to release the vehicle after finding that it had failed to return it despite payment of the towing and storage charges.
Rather than accept that judgment, Bravopro returned to court seeking to have it rescinded. The scrapyard argued that it had discovered new documents showing the bakkie had already been transferred to Soutpansberg Auto Body Repairs during November 2021 and was therefore no longer in its possession when Sivhula launched the original application.
The records that never appeared
Judge Kganyago held that rescinding a judgment delivered after a fully contested hearing is an exceptional remedy and requires compelling new evidence capable of changing the original outcome.
The judge found that Bravopro’s case failed because it could not produce its own records proving who collected the vehicle. If the scrapyard had genuinely released the bakkie, it should have been able to identify the person who took possession and produce a signed release form or similar documentation recording the handover.
Instead, Bravopro relied on a repair quotation and a client satisfaction clearance generated by a third party. The court found that neither document established that Sivhula, or anyone authorised by him, had taken possession of the vehicle.
Emails contradicted the scrapyard’s version
Correspondence exchanged during the insurance process further weakened Bravopro’s case. An email requesting an invoice for the vehicle’s release fee and storage charges indicated that the bakkie was still at the scrapyard’s premises, while later emails suggested it had not yet been uplifted.
Judge Kganyago concluded that the alleged newly discovered documents would not have produced a different outcome in the original proceedings. The High Court in Polokwane dismissed Bravopro’s rescission application and made no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
