• All Share : 51462.57
    UP 0.68%
    Top 40 : 4260.25
    UP 0.62%
    Financial 15 : 14884.34
    UP 1.15%
    Industrial 25 : 60029.86
    UP 0.47%

  • ZAR/USD : 10.7472
    UP 0.77%
    ZAR/GBP : 17.7137
    DOWN -0.01%
    ZAR/EUR : 14.1030
    UP 0.71%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1022
    DOWN -0.07%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.9611
    UP 0.07%

  • Gold : 1264.2500
    DOWN -1.73%
    Platinum : 1409.5000
    DOWN -1.02%
    Silver : 19.1547
    DOWN -1.60%
    Palladium : 882.0000
    DOWN -2.43%
    Brent Crude Oil : 100.720
    DOWN -2.04%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by INET BFA
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Tue Sep 02 18:49:26 SAST 2014

E-toll judgment expected today

Sapa | 20 September, 2012 06:52
An e-toll gantry. File photo.
Image by: Simon Mathebula

Gauteng motorists will hear on Thursday whether e-tolling will go ahead, when the Constitutional Court decides whether to overturn an interim interdict preventing e-tolling.

The High Court in Pretoria granted the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) an interdict on April 28, ruling that a full review needed to be carried out before electronic tolling of Gauteng's highways could be put into effect.

The interdict prevented the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) from levying or collecting e-tolls pending the outcome of a judicial review.

Sanral and National Treasury appealed the court order.

Sanral argued that delays in the project, due to the court's order, prevented it from paying off debts incurred in building gantries.

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

Outa's lawyer Alistair Franklin argued that Sanral's choice of e-tolling as a method of funding caused it more damage than the court order.

He said the interdict was not the cause of "irreparable harm" to the road agency.

It rather suffered "self-imposed" harm by not looking at alternative funding models, Franklin said.

Sanral lawyer David Unterhalter SC said the costs of collection for e-tolling should have been examined holistically, but that the rate of non-compliance was not a proper reason for a review of the project.

He submitted that there were measures to manage deviance.

Unterhalter admitted that there were mistakes and faults with the system, but said it was ready to be introduced.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.
Tue Sep 02 18:49:26 SAST 2014 ::