South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

May 26, 2017, 05:36:13 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

E Toll

 (Read 47920 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3660


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #300 on: 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.)

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Online Online

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #301 on: March 17, 2017, 16:21:09 PM »

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/first-high-court-judgement-for-non-payment-of-e-tolls/
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3660


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #302 on: 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.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1482



« Reply #303 on: 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.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Online Online

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #304 on: 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.
https://www.biznews.com/sa-investing/2017/03/24/e-tolls-sanral-outa/
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3660


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #305 on: April 05, 2017, 09:36:02 AM »

OUTA cancels its test case, basically in response to SANRAL’s behaviour mirroring that of Zuma.  Instead, OUTA will take on the first case to go to Court where one of its members is charged and an Intention to Defend notice has been filed.

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.158 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 24, 2017, 13:39:21 PM
Privacy Policy