Pretoria - A legal tussle has ensued between a bank and a panel beating company over a Toyota Hilux, with both wanting to obtain possession of the vehicle.
The bank said it is owed money in regards to arrear payment instalments, and the panel beater was claiming for storage costs.
Standard Bank turned to the high court sitting in Polokwane in a bid to get the car from Mohlabafase Panel Beaters.
The bank made it clear that it was the owner of the vehicle, as the person who bought it fell in arrears with his monthly instalments.
The bank and the purchaser entered into a written sale agreement for the Toyota Hilux, where the bank would remain the owner until all amounts due under the agreement have been paid in full.
The purchaser failed to make payments as agreed, and the bank issued a summons and obtained a default judgment against him.This entailed that he had to return the vehicle to the bank.
The bank, to date, could not get possession of the vehicle as the panel beaters retain the vehicle on an alleged lien in respect of storage costs.
According to the bank, the purchaser was in December 2018 already indebted to it in the amount of R441 687.65.
The bank said it offered the panel beating shop a guarantee that it would pay R33 744.00 towards the storage fees. The panel beater, on the other hand, said it had sent an invoice to the bank amounting R41 952.00.
The panel beater said it would only release the vehicle on full payment of the storage costs.
The court ruled that the vehicle should be returned to the bank while the outstanding issues between the parties are ventilated at the trial court.
“There is no reason whatsoever why the motor vehicle should not be returned to the applicant (bank) in the meantime whilst other outstanding issues between the parties shall be ventilated in the trial court,” Acting Judge RP Mdhluli said.
He added that he had sight of the pictures of the damaged motor vehicle attached to the evaluation report. “It is incumbent upon this court to protect the rights of the applicant (the owner) against further loss.
As at July 2016, the value had reduced to R100 000.00 It suffices to conclude that the value is much less now, given the lapse of time.”
The judge said the panel beaters suffered no prejudice by the return of the vehicle as it would get its day in court to prove whatever costs are due to it.