Court grants giant Chinese company seized car
Lebogang Mosikare | Friday November 2, 2018 14:51
The car (a Toyota Runx) was confiscated by Ndulamo Simon, who is the owner of Motor Max Garage (Pty) Ltd after the first respondent in the matter, Abednico Judge, a former CRSG worker, took it to the garage for repairs after he was involved in an accident using the car.
According to the genesis of the civil matter, the case evolved after Judge phoned Simon to come and tow the car to his garage after he was involved in an accident using the car.
The CRSG attorney, Sekai Nyambe told Mmegi that after Judge was involved in the accident, he took his matter to the magistrate court which ruled that he should be compensated with P35,000 for the injuries he sustained following the accident.
Nyambe said that after Judge towed the car, he refused to hand it to its rightful owners, CRSG, wanting the giant Chinese company that is involved in various multi-million pula projects in Botswana, to pay him for towing the car and other incidental expenses he had incurred as a result of keeping the car at his business premises.
When the matter was heard before Justice Lot Moroka, Nyambe told the court that the respondents were served with papers to show cause why they could not release the car to CRSG on October 11 but chose not to reply.
“We therefore pray that we be granted an order in terms of the draft order we filed in 48 hours,” said Nyambe.
When given the opportunity to respond to what Nyambe had just said, Judge said that he was in possession of a letter from Mosele Legal Services who are his legal representatives who were asking the court to postpone the matter.
On the other hand, Simon said that when GRSG served him with papers he was not present but when the second papers were brought to him, he called Judge who told him to contact Mosele.
Simon said that Judge then told him that the matter was between him and CRSG, adding that the car was currently in his possession.
Justice Moroka then told him that he was party to the matter because the disputed car was in his possession and as such, he (Simon) could have filed his replying papers as per the dictates of court procedures.
“My advice to you (Simon) is that to prevent legal costs of this matter from spiralling, you could pursue your matter with the courts to recoup the money you say CRSG owes you,” said Moroka.
Simon then told the court that he first issued CRSG an invoice detailing how much CRSG owed him after he towed the car, but after that three people from CRSG came to his garage asking him to give them the car.
Moroka then reiterated that Simon could still enforce his right to recoup the money he said GRSG owed him by way of using the courts.
“You have a right to sue to enforce your right properly before court if you incurred storage costs and other incidental expenses, but you should not simply refuse to give CRSG its car. But anyway that was merely another angle to the matter, but you are entitled to take another route bearing in mind that litigation is costly,” said Moroka.
In response to what Judge and Simon said, Nyambe said that they were both served on October 11 and he prayed with the court not to grant them the postponement they sought.
“The respondents have not produced any document in court showing that indeed Mosele is their legal representative. They were given ample time to respond to our papers. I therefore pray with the court not to grant the postponement they so seek,” said Nyambe.
Chipping in, Moroka agreed with Nyambe that the respondents were given enough time to respond after they were served.
“In essence there is no basis upon which this matter can be postponed. Like I said earlier, I advise Simon to sue to get back the money he wants from CRSG. I now conclude this matter. Your attorneys will advise you about the next step to take to recoup your money. You should however inform them that the court has refused to grant you the postponement you sought,” said Moroka. Moroka added: “After the time you were served, you could have used that opportunity to write a notice of opposition”.