Online Reporter
Mthokozisi Ncube
A BULAWAYO man who dragged Skyline Panel Beaters and Spray Painters (Pvt) Ltd to court seeking the release of his accident-damaged vehicle has lost the case after the court ruled that the company was legally entitled to keep the vehicle until it is paid for work already carried out.
Khumbulani Moyo’s application was dismissed, with costs.
Bulawayo Magistrate Beverly Madzikatire ruled that the panel beating company was lawfully exercising its right of lien by retaining the vehicle pending payment for repair services. The dispute arose after Moyo took his Mazda
Rustler/Bantam, registration number ADI 4112, to Skyline Panel Beaters in February this year following an accident.
Moyo argued that the parties had orally agreed that the damaged section would be repaired before the entire vehicle was spray-painted. However, he claimed the company later changed the agreement and insisted it would only repair the damaged door.
He further told the court that after buying a replacement door, he instructed the company through his lawyers on 4
March to stop working on the vehicle and demanded its return.
Representing Skyline Panel Beaters, Goodluck Katenaire argued that the agreement between the parties was based on a quotation which clearly outlined the scope of work and costs.
He maintained that the company had already carried out repairs authorised under the agreement and was entitled to keep possession of the vehicle until Moyo settled the outstanding charges.
In his ruling, Magistrate Madzikatire said Moyo had failed to prove that he was entitled to the relief he sought. The court found that Skyline Panel Beaters had improved the condition of the vehicle by carrying out repairs after receiving it in an accident-damaged state and was therefore entitled to be paid.
“Until applicant pays respondent for the work done, the court finds that respondent is well within its rights to hold on to the vehicle,” ruled Magistrate Madzikatire.
He added that releasing the repaired vehicle without payment would unjustly enrich the applicant at the respondent’s expense.
The application was subsequently dismissed with costs.
