E-tolls unconstitutional and invalid?

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
 
Sure there is a reason.

Judge gets paid to dismiss.

This whole thing stinks of corruption.
 
I would be very careful about casting aspersions on the judge

The DA should appeal on studying the judgment but I won't call this a loss:
(a) The court ordered the parties to pay their own costs - so not a dismissal with costs
(b) The tagging of Bills issue is a lot bigger than simply e-tolling and it is a technical issue that is not determinatively destructive of e-tolling. It is a fight I am glad the DA have finally jumped onto and there are far bigger problems (like the Superior Courts Bill) that could come into scope.
(c) The amended sections affect on provincial roads is what is at issue if the construction is advanced and accepted that the Bill is to be read on the basis of national roads then e-tolling becomes even more unworkable in a host of areas. I might get around to fleshing this out uniquely for this forum as the memo I've got on the issue is confidential.
(d) Collateral challenges are going to be a bitch for SANRAL
 
Paul Hjul said:
I would be very careful about casting aspersions on the judge

The DA should appeal on studying the judgment but I won't call this a loss:
(a) The court ordered the parties to pay their own costs - so not a dismissal with costs
(b) The tagging of Bills issue is a lot bigger than simply e-tolling and it is a technical issue that is not determinatively destructive of e-tolling. It is a fight I am glad the DA have finally jumped onto and there are far bigger problems (like the Superior Courts Bill) that could come into scope.
(c) The amended sections affect on provincial roads is what is at issue if the construction is advanced and accepted that the Bill is to be read on the basis of national roads then e-tolling becomes even more unworkable in a host of areas. I might get around to fleshing this out uniquely for this forum as the memo I've got on the issue is confidential.
(d) Collateral challenges are going to be a bitch for SANRAL
Click to expand...

Agreed...

All I want to see though is the reasons given for the dismissal, because nobody seems to be putting them forward at the moment.
 
Here you go

ToxicBunny said:
Agreed...

All I want to see though is the reasons given for the dismissal, because nobody seems to be putting them forward at the moment.
Click to expand...

http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/indus...ainst-e-toll-judgement-1.1660851#.UyGrZ_mSzfI

THE TRUE TEST

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.
Click to expand...
 
ToxicBunny said:
Interesting reasoning....
Click to expand...
and not reasoning which helps SANRAL:
Section 59A would be without teeth if the presumption only applies to national roads - because then whoever is prosecuting will have to prove that the vehicle was on a national road, especially with regard to urban tolling - proving that a person was on the N1 at Beyers Naude off-ramp and thus subject to e-tolling rather than on the flyover bridge which is a provincial road could very quickly become a nightmare - even if they move large parts of the road network to national roads it is an absolute nightmare for SANRAL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X