E Toll

<< < (61/68) > >>

Mefiante (September 12, 2016, 07:19:32 AM):
Another system glitch to inspire nothing but great confidence in SANRAL’s technical competence, preceded by another foot-in-mouth moment by none other than SANRAL’s perjurer-in-chief, Vusi Mona. (OUTA has the agreement in writing from SANRAL’s lawyers that OUTA members won’t be pursued while the test case is in progress.)

Tweefo (March 17, 2017, 16:21:09 PM):
Mefiante (March 17, 2017, 19:34:14 PM):
The most important aspect of this case is that it is a default judgement. That is, the judgement was made in favour of SANRAL in the absence of the respondent or any other opposing representations. All SANRAL had to do to be awarded a default judgement was to demonstrate to the Court that it had a legitimate claim against the respondent. To achieve this, SANRAL had to meet three criteria: (1) that it had legal standing to bring the case; (2) that its claim was lawful; and (3) that it could factually substantiate its claim.

SANRAL is the agency mandated by the Minister of Transport and the State to collect e-Tolls, so SANRAL’s legal standing is not in question. Since its claim was not in contravention of any legislation or common law principles and was in respect of an unpaid service charge (as SANRAL has previously asserted of e-Tolls), the claim is also clearly a lawful one. Photos taken at various gantries and times, as well as copies of the invoices sent to the respondent, are sufficient to substantiate the factuality of SANRAL’s claim, and thus the required standards were met, ensuring judgement in SANRAL’s favour.

And because the application was heard unopposed, the Court had no reason to probe other germane questions such as the lawfulness of e-Tolls, SANRAL’s prior conduct in attempting to coerce public compliance, or the certification of the e-Toll equipment.

The judgement sets a precedent in that a Court found in SANRAL’s favour against an e-Tolls delinquent. The judgement may well be overturned on appeal for any of several possible reasons. But this is actually moot. The test case between SANRAL and OUTA where the merits of the whole e-Toll ball of wax will be dissected will not be significantly affected by this ruling because its basis is very different.

The bottom line is that this judgement doesn’t really change anything, except for those who don’t bother to oppose any e-Toll case SANRAL may bring against them. The reader can check the OUTA website for more detail.

brianvds (March 18, 2017, 07:23:06 AM):
I suspect that ultimately, it will not matter what the court decides. We are not going to pay. Finish en klaar.
Tweefo (March 24, 2017, 17:36:04 PM):
As suspected, the slimy bastards are now trying to use the judgment of the other day to make out that the court has now decided in their favor. As Mefiante pointed out, the court's ruling was not on the gantry system at all.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page