- Three minibuses were impounded by traffic officers on 6 October 2026 while transporting learners in Vryburg.
- The operator sought their release without paying fines or fees, alleging financial losses and disruption to his school transport business.
- The High Court in Mahikeng found that he had failed to establish urgency, leaving the lawfulness of the impoundment to be decided in ordinary proceedings.
The owner of three minibuses that were impounded while transporting learners to school in Vryburg has failed in an urgent attempt to secure their release.
Isang Nakale approached the High Court in Mahikeng seeking an order directing the North West Department of Community Safety and Transport Management to return the vehicles without requiring payment of fines or fees.
The vehicles, a Toyota and two Nissan minibuses, were stopped by traffic officers on the morning of 6 October 2026. The officers issued written notices to the drivers before impounding the vehicles.
Nakale argued that the impoundment had affected his school transport business, leaving him dependent on hired vehicles to meet his obligations. He also said he was losing income because parents normally made weekly payments for transporting their children.
The department opposed the application, maintaining that the vehicles had been impounded lawfully under Section 87(1) of the National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009.
One minibus had already been returned
An important detail emerged from the department’s answering affidavit: Nakale had already recovered one of the three vehicles. On 9 October 2026, he paid R600 into the provincial government’s account, and the Toyota minibus was released.
However, when he approached the court, his application still sought the release of all three vehicles. Nakale said the payment had been made under duress. Nevertheless, Judge A Reddy found that the failure to disclose the Toyota’s release was relevant to the urgency of the application.
Delay undermined urgent application
The vehicles were impounded on 6 October, but Nakale only appointed counsel on 18 October. His application was finalised on 22 October and served on the department on 26 October.
Judge A Reddy found that the founding affidavit did not adequately explain the delay, especially the 12 days between the impoundment and the appointment of counsel. The operator also claimed that he was hiring replacement vehicles at R5,000 per vehicle per day but provided no invoices, agreements or proof of payment.
The court further found there was not enough evidence to show that learners were currently without transport to school. Judge Reddy said the interests of children were important, but the application did not identify the schools affected or the number of learners involved.
Impoundment dispute remains unresolved
The judge stressed that the application was being dismissed from the urgent roll because Nakale had not met the requirements for urgent proceedings. The court did not determine whether the traffic officials had acted lawfully when they impounded the minibuses.
Judge Reddy said the return of the vehicles and any proven financial losses could still be pursued through ordinary court proceedings. The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and Nakale was ordered to pay the department’s legal costs, including counsel’s fees on Scale A.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
