190075/2025- LH JUDGMENT
2025- 10- 24
1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted
from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO : 190075/2025
DATE : 2025- 10- 24
(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO
(3) REVISED
10
SIGNATURE . DATE: 24 October 2025
In the matter between
MOSHIN ALLI ISMAIL
and
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
20
J U D G M E N T EX TEMPORE
WILSON J: The applicant is a car dealer. A car he says he
purchased was left apparently abandoned in a public place.
It was as a result im pounded by the City of Johannesbur g.
The applicant challenges the legality of the impoundment.
He brought an urgent application before me claiming the
return of the car. In its answering affidavit, the City points
190075/2025- LH JUDGMENT
2025- 10- 24
2
out that the applicant is not the registered owner of the car ,
and refuses to deal with the applicant unless until he can
show he owns the car . According to the applicant, the
position is that he owns the car because he bought it from
the previous owner’s wife, who sold the car to the applicant
after its previous owner died.
The City has apparently threatened to crush the car
or declare it forfeit to the State, unless the owner of the car
pays the applicable impoundment fees . The applicant
challenges the legality of the impoundment and refuses to 10
pay the fees the City says are due. He tenders an affidavit
from the previous owner’s wife to show that he is the
purchaser of the vehicle, and that ownership has passed to
him, notwithstanding that his ownership is as yet
unregistered.
The City puts up a strong prima facie case that it
impounded the car in a manner consistent with its powers
under the currently applicable Regulations. The applicant
disputes this, but also seeks to challenge the constitutional
validity of the Regulations themselves. 20
That challenge is not before me, but I think that the
applicant’s case is sufficiently urgent to justify an interdict
that will restrain the destruction or forfeiture of the car until
the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to
prove his ownership, and to challenge the City’s conduct
190075/2025- LH JUDGMENT
2025- 10- 24
3
and/or the legality of the Regulations under which the City
acted.
Accordingly, I order as follows –
1 The application is declared urgent.
2 The first respondent is interdicted and restrained
from destroying or declaring forfeit a Grey Mercedes Benz
124 series 230E in its possession, bearing VIN number
1[…], engine number 1 […] and registration number S […]
(“the vehicle”), pending the final determination of a
challenge to its impoundment. 10
3 The interdict in paragraph 2 above will lapse if –
3.1 The applicant does not provide an affidavit from
the spouse of the deceased registered owner of
the vehicle confirming that the vehicle was sold
to the applicant, or other proof to the satisfaction
of the first respondent that the applicant owns
the vehicle, within seven calendar days of the
date of this order.
3.2 The applicant does not launch proceedings to
challenge the impoundment of the vehicle within 20
one month of the date of this order.
4 The first respondent is directed, on receipt of an
affidavit from the spouse of the deceased registered
owner of the vehicle confirming that the vehicle was
sold to the applicant, or of other proof to the
190075/2025- LH JUDGMENT
2025- 10- 24
4
satisfaction of the first respondent that the applicant
owns the vehicle, to provide the applicant with a copy
of the infringement notice under which the vehicle was
impounded.
5 The question of costs is reserved for determination in
the ordinary course.
…………………………..
WILSON J 10
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
24 October 2025