Not sure whether to pay e-tolls or not? Herewith the grounds of OUTA’s legal defence against forthcoming summonses against its members.

SANRAL, through their spokesperson Mr. Vusi Mona, has attempted to persuade the public that OUTA is advocating lawlessness by urging the public not to “pay e-tolls lawfully levied in terms of sections 27(1) and 27(3) of the South African National Roads Act 7 of 1998 (“the SANRAL Act”)”.

In support of this assertion, SANRAL leadership has regularly stated that all the courts have found in their favour and that they have in fact lawfully levied tolls on the Gauteng Freeways.

OUTA says that this statement is false, as there is no standing precedent in any court supporting this.

What there is, however, are three precedents wherein courts have found that SANRAL failed dismally to obey the prescripts of the SANRAL Act and have thus run roughshod over established constitutional values and principles underlying public administration.

What follows is a summary of the past OUTA vs SANRAL legal saga, highlighting the fact that the legal question of whether the Gauteng Freeways were lawfully tolled, still remains unanswered by a court.

The lawfulness of Government’s decision to declare Gauteng’s freeways as toll roads, stands to be challenged defensively, if and when SANRAL attempts to coerce the public into accepting that the Gauteng Freeways were lawfully tolled, when they were in the opinion of OUTA and the vast majority of the public, not.

In April 2012 OUTA successfully obtained an interdict in the North Gauteng High Court, preventing the charging of tolls pending the finalisation of a review application as to whether the Gauteng Freeways were lawfully tolled.

Treasury and SANRAL urgently appealed to the Constitutional Court in 2012 to overturn the interdict granted by the North Gauteng High Court, temporarily preventing them from implementing tolls. The sole legal question the Constitutional Court had to answer was clearly stated in Paragraph 9 of the judgment, “Whether the High Court was correct in granting the temporary restraining order”.

The temporary interdict was lifted by the Constitutional Court, as it was concerned that the impact on SANRAL would be greater than that on the public if SANRAL was unable to toll pending the finalisation of the review, and asserted that the public would be entitled to claim for enrichment at a later stage.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Judge Moseneke very specifically stated in paragraph 48 of the judgment that “I am unable to say without more that they bear any prospects of success. That decision I leave to the review court”.

This means that the court specifically refrained from investigating the merits of the review application and did not pronounce thereon.

Subsequent to Constitutional Court judgement, the judgement by judge Louis Vorster on the 13th of December 2012 in the Pretoria High Court, sitting as the court of first instance to decide whether the review application should succeed, incorrectly held that OUTA should not succeed on the grounds of review and the evidence available to it at that stage.

This judgment and his order for costs was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 9th October 2013, although the SCA held that the courts were precluded from pronouncing on the legality of the tolling of the Gauteng Freeways because the direct review challenge was brought out of the prescribed time period of 180 days for direct review challenges. We underscore ‘direct review challenge’, as the crux of the matter is that there is a stark difference between a direct review challenge, and what has become known as a collateral challenge (defensive challenge).

The Supreme Court of Appeal fully appreciated this distinction fact, as can be seen from paragraphs 39 and 40 the judgment wherein it quoted the dicta in other judgements.

“The right to challenge the validity of an administrative act collaterally arises because the validity of the administrative act constitutes the essential prerequisite for the legal force of the action that follows, and ex hypothesi the subject may not then be precluded from challenging its validity. On the other hand, a court that is asked to set aside an invalid administrative act in proceedings for judicial review [ie a direct challenge] has a discretion whether to grant or to withhold the remedy. It is that discretion that accords to judicial review its essential and pivotal role in administrative law, for it constitutes the indispensable moderating tool for avoiding or minimising injustice when legality and certainty collide. Each remedy thus has its separate application to its appropriate circumstances, and they ought not to be seen as interchangeable manifestations of a single remedy that arises whenever an administrative act is invalid.”

In the same judgement quoted here by the court, the nature of a collateral challenge is explained as follows:

“When construed against the background of principles underlying the rule of law, a statute will generally not be interpreted to mean that a subject is compelled to perform or refrain from performing an act in the absence of a lawful basis for that compulsion. It is in those cases – where the subject is sought to be coerced by a public authority into compliance with an unlawful administrative act – that the subject may be entitled to ignore the unlawful act with impunity and justify his conduct by raising what has come to be known as a ‘defensive’ or a ‘collateral’ challenge to the validity of the administrative act”

In paragraph 40 the court further states:

“In this light it should be apparent that the 180 day time bar in s 7(1) is confined to direct challenges by way of proceedings for judicial review. It does not limit collateral challenges at all.”

In paragraph 43 the court states:

“Hence I believe that despite the appellants’ various arguments to the contrary, we are not authorised to enter into the merits of the review application.”

What is clear from the above is that should SANRAL now attempt to coerce the public into accepting tolls by either criminally or civilly forcing them to do so, the collateral challenge may be raised in defence as to the lawfulness of the actions/decisions by SANRAL and the Minister of Transport when tolling the roads..

Read the full OUTA press statement here.

OUTA has consistently maintained that:

  1. No court has decided on the merits of whether the Gauteng Freeways have lawfully been tolled.
  2. No person is precluded from raising a collateral defence when SANRAL or the state attempts to coerce a person into paying tolls.
  3. The Minister incorrectly approved the declaration of the roads as toll roads in contravention of Section 27(4) of the SANRAL Act, read together with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, in that SANRAL did not do what was required in the circumstances to meaningfully avail the public of what was coming, and thereby afford them a reasonable opportunity to influence their and the minister’s decision.
  4. We maintain that SANRAL did not provide the Minister of Transport with the information required to apply his mind as to whether he should approve the declaration of the freeways as toll roads and therefore the minister could not and did not apply his mind.
  5. Over and above the aforementioned, the reliability of the equipment used by SANRAL to determine the quantum of the liability of motorists has seriously been drawn into question, with thousands (that we know of) of examples existing of persons being charged incorrectly as a result of number plates being read incorrectly, vehicles not being where it is said they are, vehicles not being in the categories they are said to be etc. Furthermore, an inquest in January 2014, which relied on the e-toll gantry information supplied to a case involving a fatality on the Gauteng Freeway network, resulted in the information not being used as admissible evidence, as it was grossly inaccurate.
  6. The e-Toll scheme’s cumbersome administrative processes, is further compromised by significant volumes of inaccurate data fed from the e-Natis system, which has prejudiced the road user, along with SANRAL’s extremely onerous dispute resolution process.
  7. Additional administrative prejudice arises with delays of SA Post Office which has made it extremely difficult, at times almost impossible, for the public to receive their invoices in time to qualify for certain rate categories, is another serious flaw in the systems regulations and operability at the time.
  8. The irrationality of the high costs of collection and administration of the scheme, in relation to the revenue planned for the bond repayments. This view becomes significant in light of other efficient options and current policies available to the state.
  9. There are other substantive reasons and factors pertinent to each case that can be used in each defense on the e-toll matter.

Understanding the above, OUTA takes exception to SANRAL’s statement that we are encouraging or inciting disobedience, when we support the notion and view that the public need not pay their e-tolls. The public is refusing to submit to an unlawful instruction to pay tolls.

The public therefore has every right to stand their ground and to disobey that which has been introduced unlawfully.

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments or follow GoodThingsGuy on Facebook & Twitter to keep up to date with good news as it happens.

Facebook Comments

About the Author

Brent Lindeque is the founder and editor in charge at Good Things Guy.

Recognised as one of the Mail and Guardian’s Top 200 Young South African’s as well as a Primedia LeadSA Hero, Brent is a change maker, thought leader, radio host, foodie, vlogger, writer and all round good guy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *