South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

March 30, 2017, 08:47:00 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 posting guidelines before posting.
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: March 20, 2017, 10:41:47 AM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by BoogieMonster
Seems legit.

 on: March 18, 2017, 07:23:06 AM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by brianvds
I suspect that ultimately, it will not matter what the court decides. We are not going to pay. Finish en klaar.

 on: March 17, 2017, 19:34:14 PM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by Mefiante
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.


 on: March 17, 2017, 16:21:09 PM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by Tweefo

 on: March 16, 2017, 11:01:56 AM 
Started by GCG - Last post by brianvds
I don't always pimp my own cartoons, but when I do, I do so on SA Skeptics...

 on: March 15, 2017, 06:25:43 AM 
Started by GCG - Last post by brianvds

You'll know it has worked when you stop believing it does. :-)

 on: March 14, 2017, 18:58:45 PM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by Mefiante
…while failing to grasp that that “God’s hands” adage is actually subtle disparagement.

As for “heel or land,” it could be worse than just missing u… Wink


 on: March 14, 2017, 17:16:30 PM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by brianvds

Or perhaps they'll just die of hunger...

 on: March 14, 2017, 17:05:59 PM 
Started by GCG - Last post by Tweefo

 on: March 14, 2017, 13:25:48 PM 
Started by Tweefo - Last post by BoogieMonster
Well, there you have it. More fodder for Darwin.

Call me crazy but I want a doctor to save my life, not "save" my life.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.17 seconds with 18 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 25, 2017, 11:27:28 AM
Privacy Policy