Ismail v City of Johannesburg (190075/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1089 (24 October 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1089 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Ismail v City of Johannesburg (190075/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1089 (24 October 2025) Ismail v City of Johannesburg (190075/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1089 (24 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1089.html sino date 24 October 2025 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  190075/2025 DATE :  2025-10-24 (1)  REPORTABLE:      NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES :    NO (3)  REVISED SIGNATURE.       DATE: 24 October 2025 In the matter between MOSHIN ALLI ISMAIL and CITY OF JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT 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 impounded by the City of Johannesburg. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT 24 October 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start