as Mokhotlong man alleges police stripped and returned his car as a wreck
Moorosi Tsiane
CHIEF of Police, Advocate Borotho Matsoso, is facing a M6.9 million lawsuit from a Mokhotlong man who alleges that police unlawfully seized his vehicle in 2016, kept it for nearly a decade and returned it in a severely damaged condition.
Libe Mofoka has approached the High Court seeking M6 943 300 in damages, accusing officers attached to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) at Mokhotlong Police Station of unlawfully detaining his Nissan Sani, damaging the vehicle and depriving him of opportunities to generate income.
In his court papers, Mr Mofoka alleges that the prolonged detention of the vehicle also damaged his reputation in Mokhotlong, caused emotional distress and contributed to the breakdown of his marriage.
He further accuses the police of threatening to arrest him even after the vehicle was eventually released.
According to Mr Mofoka, he purchased the Nissan Sani from Ramatibane Njanyane Mantane for M120 000 through Mr Mantane’s brother-in-law, Keletso Ramoeletsi.
The agreement was that he would pay the purchase price in exchange for ownership transfer and possession of the vehicle, which was registered in Johannesburg under registration number LSP889A.
“…Mr Ramoeletsi received the money, gave me possession of the vehicle, pending transfer,” Mr Mofoka states in his court papers.
However, the purchase turned into a protracted dispute when police officers seized the vehicle in April 2016, allegedly on suspicion that it had been stolen.
Mr Mofoka says officers who identified themselves as CID members at Mokhotlong Police Station approached him at his home around 16 April 2016 and informed him that they were impounding the vehicle for investigations into theft.
He accompanied the officers to the police station, where he presented the vehicle’s documents, including its registration certificate. He also offered to have Mr Ramoeletsi confirm that the vehicle belonged to his brother-in-law.
“They checked the papers, called Interpol Pretoria, and received confirmation of my explanation. However, instead of releasing the vehicle, they ignored these exonerating explanations, and informed me that they were not satisfied with my answers, and those of Interpol Pretoria. They said they were keeping the vehicle for further investigations,” he states.
Mr Mofoka says he subsequently made repeated attempts to recover his property, following up with the police approximately every two weeks.
He alleges that he was consistently told that investigations were ongoing, while successive Officers Commanding Mokhotlong Police Station promised to look into the matter without resolving it.
Over the years, he says, about four District Police Commanders (DIPOLs) served at the station, but none secured the release of his vehicle.
“During the course of 10 years, I made repeated follow-ups with about four successive DIPOLs who were appointed at Mokhotlong. All they did was to promise me that the vehicle would be released until they left the office,” he states.
It was only after approaching the Mokhotlong Magistrates’ Court that Mr Mofoka obtained an order for the vehicle’s release.
He says he applied for the order around 27 January 2026, with the Chief of Police’s office subsequently served with the relevant papers. His court papers refer to service on 19 March and 14 April 2026.
But the return of the vehicle allegedly revealed extensive damage.
Mr Mofoka says the mirrors were broken, the rear window damaged and the seats torn. He alleges that the condition of the vehicle was inconsistent with ordinary deterioration from prolonged storage and instead pointed to negligent handling.
He further claims that the engine was completely dead and required replacement, forcing him to tow the vehicle home rather than drive it away.
“I must emphasise that this vehicle was in perfect functioning condition when it was removed from my possession. It was driven to the station, but I had to tow it back home. I sought quotation in order to see how much I would need for complete refurbishment. Bahlokoana Motor Garage in Mokhotlong estimated the cost at M141,300,” he states.
Mr Mofoka accuses the police of unlawfully detaining the vehicle and failing to safeguard it while it was in their custody. He also alleges that parts were damaged or removed during the period of detention.
He further claims that officers used the vehicle to run their errands while it was impounded.
Beyond the physical damage, Mr Mofoka says the seizure deprived him of the opportunity to use the vehicle for his family and establish a vehicle-rental business.
He estimates that he could have earned approximately M15 000 per month by renting it out commercially, in addition to using it for personal and family purposes.
He also alleges that the incident damaged his standing in Mokhotlong, where he says he was labelled a vehicle thief despite maintaining that he had bought the Nissan Sani legitimately.
“I was humiliated and threatened by the police who regularly told me that I was a thief and promised to lock me up. I must add that even after the release of the vehicle, the Mokhotlong Police still threaten my safety and freedom by promising to arrest and jail me in retaliation for removing the vehicle from their unlawful detention,” he states.
Mr Mofoka says the dispute also affected his marriage, alleging that his wife accused him of wasting family finances on a stolen vehicle before eventually leaving him.
Mr Mofoka further alleges that his attempts to obtain compensation were unsuccessful, claiming that the Commissioner of Police ignored a letter of demand delivered after the vehicle was released.
In support of his case, he cites a police leadership memorandum dated 4 November 2024, addressed to District Police Commanders and heads of units, which he says acknowledged concerns about the handling of impounded vehicles.
According to Mr Mofoka, the memorandum highlighted negligent handling of seized vehicles and the risk of theft or damage while they remained in police custody.
“In it, the police leadership noted with concern, the negligent handling of impounded vehicles and acknowledged that they are subjected to theft or damage. This is the exact state of affairs that occurred to the applicant’s vehicle. Someone must be held liable to these acts,” he states.
He is seeking M6 943 300 in damages, comprising M3 million for the alleged unlawful and arbitrary seizure of the vehicle and interference with his property rights; M1.8 million for loss of personal use and business earnings; M143 300 for repairs and refurbishment; and M2 million for alleged defamation, humiliation, emotional distress and threats to his safety and freedom.
Adv Matsoso is yet to file opposing papers in the matter.
