The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ToxicBunny said:
I don't know about it being an offence.

But there is no entity called South African National Roads Agency (Pty) Ltd so any official documentation with that name on it is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Not (Pty) Ltd, just Ltd:

The act covers the creation of SANRAL as a SOC and refers to the companies act when doing so:

Incorporation of The South African National Roads Agency Limited
3. (1) The Minister must take all the steps that are necessary for the formation and
incorporation of that agency as a public company with a share capital within the
meaning of the Companies Act, subject to section 2, this section and section 4.
(2) Despite the provisions of the Companies Act, the State will be the only member
and shareholder of that company upon its incorporation and at any time thereafter.
(3) Despite the provisions of the Companies Act—
(a) the Minister, who represents the State, will sign the memorandum of
association, articles of association and all other documents necessary in
connection with the formation and incorporation of the company;
(b) the Registrar of Companies must register the memorandum of association and
articles of association as signed by the Minister, and incorporate the company
as a public company under the name ‘‘The South African National Roads
Agency Limited’’, with the State as its only member and shareholder, and
issue to the company a certificate to commence business with effect from the
date of the company’s incorporation.
(4) (a) The State’s rights as member and shareholder of the Agency are to be exercised
by the Minister.
(b) The relationship between the Agency and the Minister representing the State as the
only member and shareholder, will be as defined in an agreement entered into by the
Agency and the Minister for that purpose, subject to this Act.
 
Last edited:
Garyvdh said:
Well, that's just it. They have to be peace officers appointed in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Regular SANRAL employees are not no matter how many flashy blue lights they put on themselves.
Click to expand...

No, the act says that they will have those powers of arrest and detention that are conferred on a peace officer, not that they have to be a peace officer, so essentially they can appoint their employees as peace officers:


Law enforcement on national roads
54. (1) The Agency may authorise any of its employees to take steps on a national
road or any other property of the Agency, in the manner and on the conditions as
prescribed, with a view to preventing any offences created by this Act, any other
contraventions thereof and any offences in terms of the road traffic and the road safety
laws being committed on the national road or other property.
(2) Such an authorised employee will have the powers of arrest and detention
conferred on a peace officer in terms of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977
(Act No. 51 of 1977), with regard to any person who, on a national road or the property
mentioned in subsection (1), has committed any offence referred to in that subsection in
the presence of the authorised employee or who is suspected by the authorised
employee, on reasonable grounds, so to have committed such an offence.
 
Last edited:
garp said:
No, the act says that they will have those powers of arrest and detention conferred on a peace officer, not that they have to be a peace officer, so essentially they can appoint their employees as peace officers:


Law enforcement on national roads
54. (1) The Agency may authorise any of its employees to take steps on a national
road or any other property of the Agency, in the manner and on the conditions as
prescribed, with a view to preventing any offences created by this Act, any other
contraventions thereof and any offences in terms of the road traffic and the road safety
laws being committed on the national road or other property.
(2) Such an authorised employee will have the powers of arrest and detention
conferred on a peace officer in terms of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977
(Act No. 51 of 1977), with regard to any person who, on a national road or the property
mentioned in subsection (1), has committed any offence referred to in that subsection in
the presence of the authorised employee or who is suspected by the authorised
employee, on reasonable grounds, so to have committed such an offence.
Click to expand...

How would simply getting off of their "property" affect this? Would it be considered evading arrest if you simply kept on driving and pulled into a shopping centre or something. Because they seem to only have jurisdiction on National Roads. Get off national road and profit?
 
Jeez all this legal ramble is giving me a headache.
 
blunomore said:
Section 2(9) of the CPA:

(9) If there is an inconsistency between any provision of this Act and a provision of any Act not contemplated in subsection (8)—
(a) the provisions of both Acts apply concurrently, to the extent that it is possible to apply and comply with one of the inconsistent provisions without contravening the second; and
(b) to the extent that paragraph (a) cannot apply, the provision that extends the greater protection to a consumer prevails over the alternative provision.
Click to expand...


But this:

Section 5(3)
(3) A regulatory authority may apply to the Minister for an industry-wide exemption
from one or more provisions of this Act on the grounds that those provisions overlap or
duplicate a regulatory scheme administered by that regulatory authority in terms of—
(a) any other national legislation; or
(b) any treaty, international law, convention or protocol.

No law has to be passed for SANRAL to be exempt, the minister just has to declare it so, and I'm sure will do so if there is any hint of the CPA being used against them.
 
Can anyone clarify the "Peace Officer" bit? The Sanral Act empowers Sanral to Appoint people with the powers of peace officers without actually appointing peace officers. How strong is this legally?
Am I, as a private citizen, compelled by law to follow the instructions of a peace officer?
Am I, as a private citizen, compelled by law to follow the instructions of someone that is conferred the powers of a peace officer without legally being appointed as a peace officer?
 
A bit off topic. But hypothetically. What if everyone who does not approve of etolling, spontaneously decide to stop on the hghway at say, 07:15 tomorrow. Just for a minute, with their hazards on. 'Because the guy in front of me suddenly stopped officer.'
 
Compton_effect said:
A bit off topic. But hypothetically. What if everyone who does not approve of etolling, spontaneously decide to stop on the hghway at say, 07:15 tomorrow. Just for a minute, with their hazards on. 'Because the guy in front of me suddenly stopped officer.'
Click to expand...

You would be hooted at from pissed off motorists ?
 
Jola said:
Now we need someone to test this !
Click to expand...

garp said:
But this:

Section 5(3)
(3) A regulatory authority may apply to the Minister for an industry-wide exemption
from one or more provisions of this Act on the grounds that those provisions overlap or
duplicate a regulatory scheme administered by that regulatory authority in terms of—
(a) any other national legislation; or
(b) any treaty, international law, convention or protocol.

No law has to be passed for SANRAL to be exempt, the minister just has to declare it so, and I'm sure will do so if there is any hint of the CPA being used against them.
Click to expand...

In law, one always works on the current legal position - until amended by law or until decided otherwise by a court. Therefore, the CPA applies and SANRAL must invoice you.
 
ToxicBunny said:
But the SANRAL Act clearly states the following :
Click to expand...

Yes - this Act was written before the Companies Act. I know it says it must be incorporated as a public company, as was the parlance at the time, but pursuant to the new Companies Act, its classification is very clear.

The real question one should be asking is why the draftsman of the Act bothered? A empowering Act, such as for the IDC, only needs to say a body corporate is hereby created for it to be created. The draftsman of the SANRAL Act is seriously confused between the interplay between the Companies Act and Parliament's inherent power aka our quality of draftsmen has seriously gone downhill.
 
Interesting. I know of a car that did quite a few gantries last night, it has nothing showing up as owing.
Number plate is not in the standard font...
 
Yeah, after much reading and digging, I see that what the SANRAL act calls it is somewhat immaterial... :)
 
Sinbad said:
Interesting. I know of a car that did quite a few gantries last night, it has nothing showing up as owing.
Number plate is not in the standard font...
Click to expand...

Yep, as stated earlier, I know of at least two more vehicles in a similar situation. Clearly everything isn't flowing as smoothly at scamral's side as they would like us to believe.
 
I wonder if you change the font on the plate this means cameras cannot pick up the plate?
 
http://bedfordviewedenvalenews.co.za/223511/retailer-refuses-stock-e-tags/

One major retailer in Edenvale has refused to stock e-tags.The owner of the store, who asked not to be named, said despite pressure from national head office he stands by his decision to not stock e-tags.“It is extortion. The government has no right to use fear to force the people to support e-tolls,” he said.According to the store owner, one of his employees who live on the west rand had to purchase their e-tags from another outlet.National chain stores which stock e-tags are Shoprite/Checkers, CNA, Pick n Pay and Spar.
Click to expand...
Give that man a Bells
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X