MBABANE – A woman who bought a car suspected to have been stolen has rushed to court in a bid to prevent the police from releasing it to an alleged South African complainant or the South African Police Service.
The motor vehicle is a silver Toyota Yaris registered HSD 710 DH, which Andiswa Gamedze of Mobeni claims to have purchased for E105 000. She has cited the national commissioner of police, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and Thandoxolo Staffman Fakudze, from whom she allegedly purchased the vehicle, as respondents.
According to her founding affidavit, the vehicle was seized at Mahamba Border Gate on December 24, 2025, and has remained in police custody since then.
She stated that the vehicle was registered in Eswatini on or about February 25, 2024, and that she was not informed before its seizure that its registration was irregular, fraudulent or unlawfully obtained.
The applicant said she purchased the vehicle from Fakudze in August 2025 for E105 000 under a written deed of sale. She stated that she paid the full purchase price and has documentary evidence of the transaction, including proof of payment and the available registration documentation and licence disc.
Gamedze told the court that she took possession of the vehicle after the purchase, understanding that the transfer of the registration particulars into her name would be attended to in due course.
She maintained that, when she bought the vehicle, she had no knowledge that it was allegedly stolen, that its identification particulars had been compromised or that anyone in South Africa claimed ownership of it.
According to the affidavit, she purchased the vehicle openly and in good faith, without reason to suspect that it had been stolen, unlawfully imported or that the engine number, VIN or registration particulars were not genuine.
She further stated that she has not been charged or prosecuted for theft, receiving a stolen motor vehicle, tampering with identification particulars or any other offence arising from her acquisition or possession of the vehicle.
Her application refers to a report prepared by Warrant Officer Daneth Mashile of the South African Police Service’s International Vehicle Crime Investigation Unit.
According to Gamedze, Mashile inspected the vehicle at Nhlangano Police Station on July 22, 2026. The report, dated August 17, recorded the vehicle’s physical particulars as a silver Toyota Yaris with engine number 2NR5366953, VIN MR2K29F3201180142 and registration number HSD 710 DH.
However, the report allegedly stated that the engine number and VIN were not original and had been tampered with.
The affidavit states that an on-board diagnostics (OBD) reader was used during the inspection and allegedly produced different particulars: engine number 2NR5329515, VIN MR2K29F3X01167865 and registration number H$ 99 XK GP.
Gamedze argued that the discrepancy between the physical identification particulars and the information allegedly retrieved electronically does not, without further evidence, establish when or how any alteration occurred or who may have been responsible.
She also stated that the discrepancy does not establish that she knew or ought to have known of any alleged irregularity when she purchased the vehicle.
According to the applicant, she has not received a complete forensic report explaining the alleged tampering, photographs showing the alleged alterations or an expert report identifying their precise nature, location and method.
She further alleged that she has not been furnished with the technical specifications or calibration records of the OBD device, the source database relied upon or manufacturer records establishing that the alternative engine number and VIN belong to the vehicle in police custody.
According to her affidavit, she has also not received evidence establishing the origin of the alternative registration number or proving that a vehicle bearing those particulars was stolen.
Gamedze stated that possible explanations for discrepancies between electronically retrieved information and physical identification particulars could include the replacement of a component, engine or electronic control unit, a database discrepancy, an error in data capture or another circumstance.
She told the court that she is not seeking to obstruct a lawful investigation, but wants the underlying evidence disclosed before the vehicle is released to another party or removed from Eswatini.
Gamedze said she made an enquiry with the investigator, identified as Mhlanga, on October 5, concerning the investigation and continued detention of the vehicle.
She claimed she requested, among other documents, her recorded statement made on December 24, 2025, the South African police report and other information relating to the investigation.
Gamedze states that, apart from the formal request for and recording of her statement, she had not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to make representations concerning the proposed release or removal of the vehicle.
“Save for the formal request for and recording of my statement, I have not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to make representations concerning the proposed release or removal of the vehicle.
“In particular, I have not been given an opportunity to respond to the identity or alleged ownership of the South African complainant, the alleged theft report, the alleged discrepancy in the identification particulars or the proposed removal of the vehicle to South Africa,” she argued. Gamedze is represented by Nhlanhla Ginindza of N.E. Ginindza Attorneys. The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. The respondents are yet to file an answering affidavit as they are opposed to the application.
According to the affidavit, on October 7, 2026, the investigator informed her that a formal process was under way to remove the vehicle to South Africa.
She alleged that the contemplated process involved releasing the vehicle from Nhlangano Police Station to the alleged complainant and/or the South African Police Service under the Theft of Motor Vehicles Act, 1991.
Gamedze stated that she has not been furnished with a court order authorising the vehicle’s release, surrender or removal. She also says she has not received an order declaring it to be stolen property. The matter is pending in court.
