E-tolls case has ‘strong grounds’

2013-01-25 16:40

The Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) welcomed a ruling by the High Court in Pretoria granting it leave to appeal against a previous judgment made by the court.

“(It is) ... the alliance’s sincere belief that their case to halt e-tolls has strong grounds, which we trust will eventually obtain the ruling that Sanral’s current e-toll plans are illegal,” Outa executive Musa Strachan said today in a statement.

“Outa wishes to thank the thousands of citizens and hundreds of businesses that have contributed to funding this campaign.”

It said it was “mindful” that the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) could continue with the project and not wait until the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein.

“They will have to do so knowing full well that the SCA could rule the scheme illegal, in which case it may have to be halted,” Strachan said.

Today, Judge Louis Vorster granted Outa leave to appeal his previous judgment on e-tolling to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

“The order I make after some consideration is the following: leave is granted to the applicants to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against my previous judgment handed down on December 13 last year.”

He deferred the matter of costs to the SCA.

Vorster did not detail his reasons for the judgment, but said he would provide written reasons when requested.

The Democratic Alliance in Gauteng congratulated Outa.

“It is very encouraging that the Supreme Court of Appeal will now hear this matter,” DA MPL Jack Bloom said in a statement.

“It is a vitally important case because it will determine how seriously public views are taken into account on e-tolls and any other government decision, with far-reaching impact.”

Mike Maritz, for Outa, argued today that Vorster had “erred fundamentally” in his interpretation of section 27 (4) of the Sanral Act.

He said Vorster had not engaged with the argument against a lack of “procedural fairness” in the way Sanral had informed the public about e-tolling.

David Unterhalter, for Sanral, and Jeremy Gauntlett, for the Treasury, argued in favour of Vorster’s judgment.

Unterhalter said there was no reason to “burden another court” with the e-tolling issue.

He said the “heart of the matter” for Outa was companies with commercial interests.

Gauntlett agreed with Unterhalter, and said Outa was trying to argue it was representing the public when it was not.

“We submit that there is no ... (reason) that another court will come to a different conclusion on a cost basis,” Gauntlett said.

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.