Sibanda takes VID head on

Politics
PROMINENT Bulawayo lawyer Job Sibanda has taken the Vehicle Inspection Depot (VID) to the High Court for charging him storage fees for a vehicle

PROMINENT Bulawayo lawyer Job Sibanda has taken the Vehicle Inspection Depot (VID) to the High Court for charging him storage fees for a vehicle that was involved in an accident last month.

NDUDUZO TSHUMA STAFF REPORTER

Sibanda argues that there were no legal provisions to charge him for exceeding the stipulated 14 days at the VID yard saying the law only applies to public service vehicles.

The lawyer wants the High Court to direct the VID to allow him or his agent to collect the vehicle, a Nissan Vannetee, from the depot without making any extra payments.

In his founding affidavit, Sibanda said the vehicle was involved in an accident on September 3 along Khami Road and was towed to the VID yard as per regulations for an inspection.

Sibanda said he could not locate the car registration book for some days after the accident and when he eventually did, he asked his agent to collect the car on October 2.

Sibanda said he was advised that certain payments were required before the vehicle could be released and the charges were $20 as an inspection fee, $60 to Quick’s, the company that had towed the vehicle to the VID. He paid the monies.

Sibanda says he was then charged an extra $80 as storage charges calculated at $20 per day penalty for four days that the vehicle had supposedly overstayed.

“I advised the respondent’s officer, senior inspector Dzimba that I needed to verify whether the daily penalty of $20 for the additional days was lawful and asked him for the statutory instrument that permitted respondent to levy such fee,” Sibanda said in his application.

He said Dzimba asked for a day to find the statutory instrument and on October 3 advised through his officers that the Statutory Instrument (SI) was 17/09, but the lawyer failed to find the relevant section.

“In fact, it appeared to me that SI 17/09 is concerned with licensing fees and the issuing of permits to transport operators and fees payable therefore.

“I proceeded to the respondent’s offices where I saw senior inspector Dzimba in the company of his manager,” Sibanda said.

He said the three of them went through the SI and the manager pointed to Section 9 (a) (vii) as authorising the daily charge.

“However, this section is clearly inapplicable because the whole instrument was made in terms of the Road Motor Transportation Act and is concerned with the licensing and issue permits in respect of public service motor vehicles, not private cars,” Sibanda said.

He said Dzimba agreed and indicated that he needed to contact his boss in Harare for the correct statutory instrument and after a while said the provisions were in Statutory Instrument 54/10 referring to Section 84.

“While it is true that the situation in this case is covered in that instrument, I submit with respect that the instrument does not authorise the penalty of $20 per day or any amount at all, for situations such as exist in this case,” Sibanda added.