Sanral e-tolls case struck from the roll

@Willens-Wetens
of all the threads where comments have been made concerning the FF+ court bid and the judge hearing the matter this is the oddest thread to have commented as you have - a really interesting 1st post if I might add.

A few points of correction. Whilst High Court judges in South Africa enjoy the Lordship address form and are "red robe" judicial officers they are not appointed as "full-time Supreme Court". Moreover the issue is that the appointment of Jansen to the court on a specific time frame made her from the perspective of the protocols of judicial seniority the least experienced judge to hear the matter and in a position of having been unable to have had time to consider the application in full length and scope. As I pointed out - in absolute defence of the competence and integrity of justice Jansen the probabilities of the President (who has no integrity) abusing the appointments processes and known court roll could well have appointed an advocate known to be conservative on the question of urgency.

Moreover your understanding of the Constitutional Court decision and its implications for interim interdicts. As I indicated in at least one of the threads on the subject the FF+ (the Applicants in this matter) were taking a long shot on the urgency issue but in light of various considerations (equity comes not to those who slumber) I believe they were well advised to bring the suit.
 
Willens-Wetens said:
After reading all the derogatory remarks about Judge Mabel Jansen, I did my own research. She has been an advocate for close on 30 years. She won the prize as the best final year student not only in law but for the whole university. She has been an acting judge on an interim basis since 1998 and on 2/12/2013 to a full-time Supreme Court Judge. (here fails no experience and I challenge anybody to disprove me) Totally "inexperienced" according to her critics, she heard her first case on the 3/12/2012. Judge Jansen is one of the brightest legal minds in South Africa and the country should be pleased that she has decided to serve as a judge after all these years being involved in some of the most complicated legal cases. Harley Davidson, Monsanto, BodyShop, Bayer, Pfizer, McDonalds but to name a few. In the McDonalds case Judge Jansen and her team won the ICL prize as the BEST APPEAL TEAM IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!! (Says something about Judge Jansen's legal experience)
She was bound as a single judge, by the OUTA Matter where the Constitutional Court's 11 judges upheld that payment of Toll fees does not allow a judge to grant an interim interdict. Furthermore to get an interim interdict one must prove there are NO alternative remedies. The Constitutional Court held that the alternative remedy is to sue SANRAIL for damages. Had Judge Jansen granted an interim interdict she would have been a complete idiot.
On the SASLII web-sight is the OUTA judgement by which Judge Jansen was bound. Judge Jansen was astute enough to strike the matter from the role to give the Applicant a second bite at the cherry. Now the Applicant can bring a well prepared case.
The off the cuff subjective, ill-informed, unfound comments (without even consulting Judge Google for 5 minutes) about and experienced judge is preposterous. Who is actually ill-informed Judge Jansen or her critics?
Click to expand...

@Willens-Wetens

Welcome to MyBroadband.

This forum mostly consists of a bunch of children and then a large number of backtracked adults who are easily manipulated. People like Paul_Hjul is a law student who still has not qualified, and apparently is not interested in qualifying in law. He mainly quotes from books whenever he answers and has indicated a sincere lack of legal experience. You will also note most of his posts are not making sense and looks totally irrational.

Yet, there are a large number of people who find him beyond repute and follow him in a cult-way. They are even worse. They have very little to no legal experience combined and people here would take a go at anyone who do not agree with them and is not against the e-Toll system.

So, you should rather ignore what is about to come from this group of people, as they will directly take on the man when they are proven wrong.

Just a word of caution for you.
 
House seems to get his references from Wikipedia, so don't take him too seriously.
 
Willens-Wetens said:
After reading all the derogatory remarks about Judge Mabel Jansen, I did my own research. She has been an advocate for close on 30 years. She won the prize as the best final year student not only in law but for the whole university. She has been an acting judge on an interim basis since 1998 and on 2/12/2013 to a full-time Supreme Court Judge. (here fails no experience and I challenge anybody to disprove me) Totally "inexperienced" according to her critics, she heard her first case on the 3/12/2012. Judge Jansen is one of the brightest legal minds in South Africa and the country should be pleased that she has decided to serve as a judge after all these years being involved in some of the most complicated legal cases. Harley Davidson, Monsanto, BodyShop, Bayer, Pfizer, McDonalds but to name a few. In the McDonalds case Judge Jansen and her team won the ICL prize as the BEST APPEAL TEAM IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!! (Says something about Judge Jansen's legal experience)
She was bound as a single judge, by the OUTA Matter where the Constitutional Court's 11 judges upheld that payment of Toll fees does not allow a judge to grant an interim interdict. Furthermore to get an interim interdict one must prove there are NO alternative remedies. The Constitutional Court held that the alternative remedy is to sue SANRAIL for damages. Had Judge Jansen granted an interim interdict she would have been a complete idiot.
On the SASLII web-sight is the OUTA judgement by which Judge Jansen was bound. Judge Jansen was astute enough to strike the matter from the role to give the Applicant a second bite at the cherry. Now the Applicant can bring a well prepared case.
The off the cuff subjective, ill-informed, unfound comments (without even consulting Judge Google for 5 minutes) about and experienced judge is preposterous. Who is actually ill-informed Judge Jansen or her critics?
Click to expand...

Why feel the need to defend? Interesting first post. Please remember that this is the internet after all.
 
House said:
@Willens-Wetens

Welcome to MyBroadband.

This forum mostly consists of a bunch of children and then a large number of backtracked adults who are easily manipulated. People like Paul_Hjul is a law student who still has not qualified, and apparently is not interested in qualifying in law. He mainly quotes from books whenever he answers and has indicated a sincere lack of legal experience. You will also note most of his posts are not making sense and looks totally irrational.

Yet, there are a large number of people who find him beyond repute and follow him in a cult-way. They are even worse. They have very little to no legal experience combined and people here would take a go at anyone who do not agree with them and is not against the e-Toll system.

So, you should rather ignore what is about to come from this group of people, as they will directly take on the man when they are proven wrong.

Just a word of caution for you.
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Also interesting to note is that the esteemed judge Jansen's daughter has a SANRAL bursary. ;)
Click to expand...
sause?

I wouldn't read to much into it even if true. With all necessary and attendant respect I have a greater problem with Justice Cynthia Prinsloo's approach to avoiding any possible perception of bias (to assert having nothing to do with TUKS) than a situation where a relative has been a beneficiary of something.
 
Paul Hjul said:
sause?

I wouldn't read to much into it even if true. With all necessary and attendant respect I have a greater problem with Justice Cynthia Prinsloo's approach to avoiding any possible perception of bias (to assert having nothing to do with TUKS) than a situation where a relative has been a beneficiary of something.
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to dismiss that allegation, this particular case needs validation and there could well be other instances where SCAMRAL has bought the loyalty of the judiciary and other influential people.

Maybe the badly constructed RDP dwelling is one of SCAMRAL's (or the NPA's) bursary recipients.
 
I am not dismissing the allegation at all - quite interested in the source - but I am quite weary of impeaching a judges integrity on tenuous grounds

The RDP dwelling is unlikely to have received a bursary of any kind whatsoever. My suspicion is that his position on certain things is tied to current stipends he is collecting; and in others he is simply in the business of FUD
 
Paul Hjul said:
I am not dismissing the allegation at all - quite interested in the source - but I am quite weary of impeaching a judges integrity on tenuous grounds
Click to expand...

I was mostly concerned with this part of your post:

Paul Hjul said:
I wouldn't read to much into it [highlight]even if true.[/highlight]
Click to expand...

If this one allegation [-]of[/-] turns out to be true, there should be a wider investigation into other bursaries and anything else that SCAMRAL could have used to buy the loyalty of influential people.

Paul Hjul said:
The RDP dwelling is unlikely to have received a bursary of any kind whatsoever. My suspicion is that his position on certain things is tied to current stipends he is collecting; and in others he is simply in the business of FUD
Click to expand...

Agreed and eventually the badly constructed RDP dwelling will implode leaving only rubble that no one cares to pay any attention to.

PeeVee said:
Thanks for this.

I have been looking for it for some time as I cannot stand the FUD of this persomn anymore.

Once again my sincere thanks.
Click to expand...

LOL, it's actually on the profile page of the badly constructed RDP dwelling :)
 
Last edited:
Paul Hjul said:
sause?

I wouldn't read to much into it even if true. With all necessary and attendant respect I have a greater problem with Justice Cynthia Prinsloo's approach to avoiding any possible perception of bias (to assert having nothing to do with TUKS) than a situation where a relative has been a beneficiary of something.
Click to expand...

http://www.rapport.co.za/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/E-tolregter-se-dogter-het-Sanral-beurs-20131214

Apparently she said it in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X