All data is delayed
See More

Reasons for e-toll halt vague - lawyer

Aug 15 2012 14:25

Johannesburg - Reasons given by the High Court in Pretoria for granting an interim interdict against e-tolling were vague and unclear, the Constitutional Court heard on Wednesday.

National Treasury lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett said High Court Judge Bill Prinsloo did not provide adequate reasons for his decision to grant the interdict.

"With respect, what he does... is tick the individual interdict boxes, and to say each time that it (the reason) is there."

He said it was difficult for the parties to determine how he had come to his conclusions.

"It is the beginning of vagueness."

The interdict by the High Court in Pretoria, brought by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa), was granted on April 28.

It instructed that a full review needed to be carried out before electronic tolling of Gauteng's highways could be put into effect.

The SA National Roads Agency Ltd (Sanral) and National Treasury are appealing against the court order.

Gauntlett argued on Wednesday there was a lack of concern about the financial implications of the interdict in Outa's founding affidavit. He said it predicted harm, and that the harm would fall solely on Sanral, but nothing was further analysed.

"It leaves out, spectacularly, public interest."

Gauntlett said it was wholly unrealistic to grant an interdict against the project when it was ready to begin.

"I know it's all been built. What this fight about is how it is (to be) paid (for)."

He likened this to having built a stadium and reviewing it based merely on how its turnstiles functioned.

Gauntlett said the interdict, by acknowledging that the government had decided to take-on Sanral's debts, would unfairly affect the entire country's economy.

"Government ends up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Where Paul are road users who have claimed this wonderful world-class transport facility, and Peter are the people in other provinces."

Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke asked why, if the government was so opposed to the interdict, would it agree to so many postponements.

Gauntlett said one of the four postponements was for technical reasons, while the others were about public concerns.

He said the court, through acknowledging the idea of the separation of powers, should grant the appeal.

"Therefore we ask for the application to be allowed and for the appeal to be upheld," Gauntlett said, closing his argument.

*Follow Fin24 on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.




Read Fin24’s Comments Policy publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Company Snapshot

We're Talking About...

Savings Month

It's never too late to start saving. Visit our special issue and add your voice.

Money Clinic

Money Clinic
Do you have a question about your finances? We'll get an expert opinion.
Click here...

Voting Booth

The proposal to nationalise SARB will

Previous results · Suggest a vote