-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
DA loses e-toll court bid
- Thread starter LazyLion
- Start date
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
E-TOLLING APPLICATION DISMISSED
An application to declare the e-tolling legislation unconstitutional and invalid was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.
"The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs," Judge Owen Rogers said.
He said the Democratic Alliance, which lodged the application, would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal his judgment.
The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act was passed into law in September last year.
The amendments allowed for the collection of electronically recorded tolls and the implementation of the electronic toll-collection system.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the Sanral and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), and the National Treasury.
They had argued that the amendments had not made vital and substantial changes to provinces and had therefore been tagged correctly.
Source : Sapa /je/fg/ks
Date : 13 Mar 2014 10:43
An application to declare the e-tolling legislation unconstitutional and invalid was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.
"The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs," Judge Owen Rogers said.
He said the Democratic Alliance, which lodged the application, would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal his judgment.
The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act was passed into law in September last year.
The amendments allowed for the collection of electronically recorded tolls and the implementation of the electronic toll-collection system.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the Sanral and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), and the National Treasury.
They had argued that the amendments had not made vital and substantial changes to provinces and had therefore been tagged correctly.
Source : Sapa /je/fg/ks
Date : 13 Mar 2014 10:43
While I would prefer this thing to be taken down in the courts, it seems like each one of them is failing.
Civil disobedience seems to be only thing that's still working and one has to wonder how a fairly high-profile judgement like this will affect the public's resolve.
Civil disobedience seems to be only thing that's still working and one has to wonder how a fairly high-profile judgement like this will affect the public's resolve.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
DA TO APPEAL AGAINST E-TOLLING JUDGMENT
The DA is set to appeal against a judgment handed down on Thursday dismissing its application to have e-tolling legislation declared unconstitutional and invalid.
"While the application was dismissed, it is significant that both parties will pay their own costs," Democratic Alliance Gauteng premier candidate Mmusi Maimane said.
"We are studying the judgment and will issue further comment at a later stage."
Maimane said the party was committed to calling a referendum when elected so that Gauteng residents could vote directly against e-tolling.
Western Cape High Court Judge Owen Rogers dismissed the application and said parties would bear their own costs.
The DA was not ordered to pay costs because Rogers believed the case had raised "genuine and substantive constitutional issues".
He said the DA would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal.
The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was enacted in September last year.
The amendments were primarily intended to facilitate the electronic monitoring of traffic through toll plazas and the electronic collection of the tolls.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The tagging has implications for voting procedures and the power of the majority party in Parliament.
A section 75 bill is still referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) so it can decide whether to accept, reject or recommend amendments.
However, the National Assembly ultimately decides whether to pass the bill with or without amendments, or not proceed with the bill at all.
With a section 75 bill, the voting procedure is more likely to result in a majority vote in the NCOP which accords with the majority in the National Assembly.
A section 76 bill is different in that it is referred to a mediation committee if the NCOP rejects the bill or if the National Assembly declines to pass it with recommended amendments.
It also enforces one vote per delegation.
This means that should the bill be rejected by the NCOP and not resolved by the mediation committee, the National Assembly cannot force the legislation through except with a two-thirds majority.
The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, Sanral, and the National Treasury.
The respondents had argued that the amendments did not add substantial measures to the existing Sanral Act.
Even if further e-tolling was introduced on the strength of the amendments, the respondents argued that effects on functional areas of concurrent national and provincial competence would not be substantial.
Rogers ruled that the true test in terms of the relevant sections of the Constitution favoured a direct regulation approach based on legislative competence, rather than the knock-on effects approach.
"The knock-on effects approach would also, I think, result in virtually all legislation having to be tagged in terms of section 76," Rogers said in his written judgment.
This would be so because everything that happened in the country happened in one or more provinces.
"If the implementation of the pre-existing act as amended by the amendment act does indeed significantly change traffic patterns, trade and urban development in a particular province, that province will be at liberty... to enact legislation to alter the law in that province regarding these functional areas."
The judge said it was clear in his mind that provincial legislatures had no power to pass legislation aimed at meeting the purposes identified in the act.
Source : Sapa /je/hdw/lp/jk
Date : 13 Mar 2014 13:08
The DA is set to appeal against a judgment handed down on Thursday dismissing its application to have e-tolling legislation declared unconstitutional and invalid.
"While the application was dismissed, it is significant that both parties will pay their own costs," Democratic Alliance Gauteng premier candidate Mmusi Maimane said.
"We are studying the judgment and will issue further comment at a later stage."
Maimane said the party was committed to calling a referendum when elected so that Gauteng residents could vote directly against e-tolling.
Western Cape High Court Judge Owen Rogers dismissed the application and said parties would bear their own costs.
The DA was not ordered to pay costs because Rogers believed the case had raised "genuine and substantive constitutional issues".
He said the DA would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal.
The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was enacted in September last year.
The amendments were primarily intended to facilitate the electronic monitoring of traffic through toll plazas and the electronic collection of the tolls.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The tagging has implications for voting procedures and the power of the majority party in Parliament.
A section 75 bill is still referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) so it can decide whether to accept, reject or recommend amendments.
However, the National Assembly ultimately decides whether to pass the bill with or without amendments, or not proceed with the bill at all.
With a section 75 bill, the voting procedure is more likely to result in a majority vote in the NCOP which accords with the majority in the National Assembly.
A section 76 bill is different in that it is referred to a mediation committee if the NCOP rejects the bill or if the National Assembly declines to pass it with recommended amendments.
It also enforces one vote per delegation.
This means that should the bill be rejected by the NCOP and not resolved by the mediation committee, the National Assembly cannot force the legislation through except with a two-thirds majority.
The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, Sanral, and the National Treasury.
The respondents had argued that the amendments did not add substantial measures to the existing Sanral Act.
Even if further e-tolling was introduced on the strength of the amendments, the respondents argued that effects on functional areas of concurrent national and provincial competence would not be substantial.
Rogers ruled that the true test in terms of the relevant sections of the Constitution favoured a direct regulation approach based on legislative competence, rather than the knock-on effects approach.
"The knock-on effects approach would also, I think, result in virtually all legislation having to be tagged in terms of section 76," Rogers said in his written judgment.
This would be so because everything that happened in the country happened in one or more provinces.
"If the implementation of the pre-existing act as amended by the amendment act does indeed significantly change traffic patterns, trade and urban development in a particular province, that province will be at liberty... to enact legislation to alter the law in that province regarding these functional areas."
The judge said it was clear in his mind that provincial legislatures had no power to pass legislation aimed at meeting the purposes identified in the act.
Source : Sapa /je/hdw/lp/jk
Date : 13 Mar 2014 13:08
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
E-TOLLING JUDGMENT WELCOMED
Transport Minister Dipuo Peters has welcomed a judgment dismissing an application challenging the constitutionality of e-tolling legislation.
"It must be noted by all that we have been to various courts on this matter of e-tolling wherein various aspects of the process were queried," she said on Thursday.
"In all these processes the judiciary found that there was nothing untoward or illegal about the processes followed by government and/or its agencies."
She called on all concerned parties to observe, respect and protect the independence of the judicial system by not continuing to question government processes after courts had made a pronouncement.
The country's needs for infrastructure should not be turned into a political game in which parties "hijacked" genuine concerns for their own interests, she said.
"Misinformation campaigns and other means have been exhausted in trying to dissuade citizens from complying with laws of the Republic and contribute towards the building of a better country."
She said an increasing number of people had registered for e-tags in Gauteng despite these attempts.
The Democratic Alliance approached the Western Cape High Court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was enacted in September last year.
The amendments were primarily intended to facilitate the electronic monitoring of traffic through toll plazas and the electronic collection of the tolls.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
Western Cape High Court Judge Owen Rogers dismissed the application on Thursday and said it was clear in his mind that provincial legislatures had no power to pass legislation aimed at meeting the purposes identified in the act.
The DA was not ordered to pay costs because Rogers believed the case had raised "genuine and substantive constitutional issues".
DA Gauteng premier candidate Mmusi Maimane said the party intended filing an application for leave to appeal against the judgment.
Parliament and Sanral welcomed the judgment in their favour.
"We urge those who have questioned the legality of this bill to respect the court's judgment," SA National Roads Agency Limited spokesman Vusi Mona said.
Parliament said the judgment had vindicated two of the respondents, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chairman Mninwa Mahlangu.
"The judgment is a vindication for the Parliamentary process which was followed in the enactment of the [amendment] act and the role of the Joint Tagging Mechanism in exercising its constitutional function."
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The tagging has implications for voting procedures and the power of the majority party in Parliament.
A section 75 bill is still referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) so it can decide whether to accept, reject or recommend amendments.
However, the National Assembly ultimately decides whether to pass the bill with or without amendments, or not proceed with the bill at all.
With a section 75 bill, the voting procedure is more likely to result in a majority vote in the NCOP which accords with the majority in the National Assembly.
A section 76 bill is different in that it is referred to a mediation committee if the NCOP rejects the bill or if the National Assembly declines to pass it with recommended amendments.
It also enforces one vote per delegation.
This means that should the bill be rejected by the NCOP and not resolved by the mediation committee, the National Assembly cannot force the legislation through except with a two-thirds majority.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, Sisulu, Mahlangu, Peters, Sanral, and the National Treasury.
The respondents had argued that the amendments did not add substantial measures to the existing Sanral Act.
Even if further e-tolling was introduced on the strength of the amendments, the respondents argued that effects on functional areas of concurrent national and provincial competence would not be substantial.
Rogers said provinces would be at liberty to enact legislation in future to alter laws that affected them in terms of significantly changing traffic patterns, trade and urban development.
Source : Sapa /je/hdw/lp/ks
Date : 13 Mar 2014 16:31
Transport Minister Dipuo Peters has welcomed a judgment dismissing an application challenging the constitutionality of e-tolling legislation.
"It must be noted by all that we have been to various courts on this matter of e-tolling wherein various aspects of the process were queried," she said on Thursday.
"In all these processes the judiciary found that there was nothing untoward or illegal about the processes followed by government and/or its agencies."
She called on all concerned parties to observe, respect and protect the independence of the judicial system by not continuing to question government processes after courts had made a pronouncement.
The country's needs for infrastructure should not be turned into a political game in which parties "hijacked" genuine concerns for their own interests, she said.
"Misinformation campaigns and other means have been exhausted in trying to dissuade citizens from complying with laws of the Republic and contribute towards the building of a better country."
She said an increasing number of people had registered for e-tags in Gauteng despite these attempts.
The Democratic Alliance approached the Western Cape High Court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was enacted in September last year.
The amendments were primarily intended to facilitate the electronic monitoring of traffic through toll plazas and the electronic collection of the tolls.
The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.
Western Cape High Court Judge Owen Rogers dismissed the application on Thursday and said it was clear in his mind that provincial legislatures had no power to pass legislation aimed at meeting the purposes identified in the act.
The DA was not ordered to pay costs because Rogers believed the case had raised "genuine and substantive constitutional issues".
DA Gauteng premier candidate Mmusi Maimane said the party intended filing an application for leave to appeal against the judgment.
Parliament and Sanral welcomed the judgment in their favour.
"We urge those who have questioned the legality of this bill to respect the court's judgment," SA National Roads Agency Limited spokesman Vusi Mona said.
Parliament said the judgment had vindicated two of the respondents, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chairman Mninwa Mahlangu.
"The judgment is a vindication for the Parliamentary process which was followed in the enactment of the [amendment] act and the role of the Joint Tagging Mechanism in exercising its constitutional function."
The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.
The tagging has implications for voting procedures and the power of the majority party in Parliament.
A section 75 bill is still referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) so it can decide whether to accept, reject or recommend amendments.
However, the National Assembly ultimately decides whether to pass the bill with or without amendments, or not proceed with the bill at all.
With a section 75 bill, the voting procedure is more likely to result in a majority vote in the NCOP which accords with the majority in the National Assembly.
A section 76 bill is different in that it is referred to a mediation committee if the NCOP rejects the bill or if the National Assembly declines to pass it with recommended amendments.
It also enforces one vote per delegation.
This means that should the bill be rejected by the NCOP and not resolved by the mediation committee, the National Assembly cannot force the legislation through except with a two-thirds majority.
The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, Sisulu, Mahlangu, Peters, Sanral, and the National Treasury.
The respondents had argued that the amendments did not add substantial measures to the existing Sanral Act.
Even if further e-tolling was introduced on the strength of the amendments, the respondents argued that effects on functional areas of concurrent national and provincial competence would not be substantial.
Rogers said provinces would be at liberty to enact legislation in future to alter laws that affected them in terms of significantly changing traffic patterns, trade and urban development.
Source : Sapa /je/hdw/lp/ks
Date : 13 Mar 2014 16:31
AfricanTech
Honorary Master
So, does this mean that if the Province believes that eTolls are bad, they can enact legislation to prevent them in the province?
Nerfherder
Honorary Master
No, means they can't fight it.
This is probably the beginning of eTolls in the W-cape.
Correct.
The judgment means that there is nothing unconstitutional in terms of e-Tolls. Government can now proceed in implementing the system across the country.
Any person, political party or institution thinking of taking the matter now to the highest court (constitutional court) will need to contend with a full bench of ANC Government-appointed judges (who are instructed to act in favour of the government) as well as a number of lower courts that also decided not to stop the e-Toll system.
So, welcome to this ass**** e-tolls system in SA!
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
No, not quite. The e-Tolling system itself has never been tested, in lower/higher, or the constitutional court. It's always been a technical side-issue, as was this case.