Judge: Outa case must be heard before e-tolls kick in
The court challenge to e-tolling by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) must be heard as a matter of urgency, a judge has ruled.
However it is not yet known whether the urgency granted in the interdict application being heard the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria by presiding Judge Bill Prinsloo, will force a postponement of the implementation date, which is set for Monday April 30.
A proper case of urgency had been made by the Outa, Prinsloo ruled on Wednesday: “The matter will proceed.”
“The widespread public interest and the protesting ... should persuade me to hear the matter.”
A full hearing on the matter will now follow.
Prinsloo said lawyers for the South African National Road Agency Limited (Sanral), National Treasury, the national transport minister and the Gauteng transport minister did not persuade him that the Outa application was an abuse of the court.
On Tuesday, Outa was sharply criticised by Sanral as well as several other friends of the court acting, for bringing the case to court so close to e-tolling’s planned implementation on April 30.
Sanral’s advocate David Unterhalter had argued that Outa was “far too late” in bringing forward a legal challenge as the “horse had already bolted”.
“There is no reason to bring the e-tolls matter forward with urgency as there is no other alternative. The expense has been incurred and it must no be addressed,” he said on Tuesday.
Jeremy Gauntlett SC, legal counsel for the department of treasury, accused Outa of using their late application as a strategic attempt to force the court into finding in their favour.
“In a race, you don’t wait for the last person to put on their shoes. This argument has no standing and is based on political and legal pressures yielding a result,” he said.
The transport department’s legal representative, Vincent Maleka SC, accused the alliance of representing people who want to “enjoy but not pay for” infrastructure upgrades in South Africa.
“The applicant does not have sufficient reasoning to bring this matter before the court urgently, their application should be dismissed with costs,” said Maleka.
But Outa’s legal counsel, Alistair Franklin, dismissed these criticisms, saying numerous delays and postponements by Sanral in implementing e-tolling meant the timeframe was unclear.
“The target date was ambiguous. We only knew when launch will be in late February and that is why this interdict application is only being heard now,” he said.
The latest date for implementation was announced on February 22 2012 the same day as Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s budget speech.
This followed the initial launch date being postponed in April 2011, and further delayed in June and November last year, as well as February 2012.
Outa further argued that Sanral is not fully prepared to launch the system as legislation relating to fee structures and exemptions for certain commuters is yet to be implemented.
“My lord, don’t shut the door in the face of the public. This is a matter of unprecedented public controversy,” Franklin added.
But Judge Prinsloo agreed on Wednesday morning that the matter was urgent.
Outa said it remains “very confident” of their overall case, and hoped the interdict would help Gauteng motorists avoid unnecessary financial strain.
“It would be difficult to see Sanral pay back money to the consumer if they were forced into scrapping the system after implementation. Most of though, it would be sad that South African citizens didn’t have a chance to have their case heard before they start paying,” said Outa spokesperson Pieter Conradie.—Additional reporting by Sapa