HOW WE HAVE ENGAGED ON THE E-TOLL MATTER
Understanding the logic and issues, OUTA and its many thousands of supporters are of the strong opinion that e-tolling of GFIP is fundamentally flawed and has been introduced unlawfully. It is most certainly not in the best interests of the citizen and works against the ultimate role that Government ought to play – i.e. to enhance the wellbeing of its citizens.
OUTA and its supporters have embarked on a course of legal action to challenge the e-Toll implementation, in its current form. While:
Part A of our application (the urgent Interdict) to halt the launch of e-tolling before the planned launch date of 30 April 2012) was successful
Part B of The Case (The Review) from 26 to 28 November 2012 was not. In OUTA’s opinion, the judgment handed down on 13 December 2012 by Judge Vorster, was fundamentally flawed and therefore sought to appeal this outcome.
OUTA’s appeal to the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein was set aside and not entertained, due to a technicality (within administration law), for the time taken to bring the matter to court (outside 180 days of the proven period when the issue came to OUTA’s attention.)
The Supreme Court however expressly indicating the lawfulness of SANRAL’s actions still needs to be tested and tested it will be, in such an instance when someone is summonsed for failing to pay for e-Tolls (and there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands that are not paying e-Tolls). In this case, the technical arguments do not apply and the Judge(s) will have to hear the detailed arguments and input pertaining to SANRAL’s behavior when seeking approval from Cabinet to introduce e-Tolls.
In this regard, OUTA has a wealth of information pertaining to SANRAL’s unlawful and misleading behavior, which we will bring to a qualifying court challenge on e-Tolls, should we raise the necessary funds from society to cover the legal costs