Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: E-Tolling ban lifted

  1. #11
    Diamond Member Justloadit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    3,480
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 695 Times in 593 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi Ians,

    Don't think that KZN or theCape will not be affected.

    As soon as Gautengaleng is in the E-Toll pocket, your area will be next. They will come and put up gantries, all in the name of improving the infrastructure. They did start in CT, but abandoned it when the Gautengalengers started their objections to this.

    The last I heard is that most provinces want SANRAL to take over the road maintenance programs, which invariably means - e-tolling in your area.
    Victor - Knowledge is a blessing or a curse, your current circumstances make you decide!
    Solar pumping, Solar Geyser & Solar Security lighting solutions - www.microsolve.co.za

  2. #12
    Diamond Member Blurock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    4,151
    Thanks
    758
    Thanked 886 Times in 735 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Cooper View Post
    You think other areas will not be affected?

    The suppliers will pay the tolls, and built it into their costs, which will be passed on to retailers, which will be passed on to consumers.

    So, you pay via petrol or retailer - all the same!
    Well, at least the taxis will be paying some form of tax. They are currently exempt, yet they are the biggest cause of accidents and congestion on our roads.

    Interesting comment by Pravin Gordhan;

    By: Sapa
    21st September 2012

    "Theoretically, if the government wants to go and collect tolls tomorrow, it can go ahead and collect them, but that's not the issue," Gordhan told SAfm on Friday morning.
    In line with Jacob Zuma's statement in parliament that they can do as they want. Minorities have no rights.
    Excellence is not a skill; its an attitude...

  3. #13
    Email problem
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    E-TOLL is just another way of sucking our blood mean while the rich goes to bank...............

  4. #14
    Diamond Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    planet earth
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 317 Times in 287 Posts
    Which part of what was drummed into us in the old sandf was propagander?

  5. #15
    Diamond Member tec0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    4,624
    Thanks
    1,884
    Thanked 463 Times in 410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    The rich will become richer and in the end the poor must provide, they always do. Fact is Taxis are looked at as public transport and yet for any minority it is a 50/50 chance in getting there safely or being mugged murdered. This has happened before.

    I would rather pay more for my petrol then what I would pay for this e-toll crap. Now am I crazy? Consider this, with petrol prices increased the rich will still get their money but this time around everyone including the road abusing taxies gets to pay not just the public. Thus everyone must carry the burden and get angry at the supper elite.

    In the end I fear that they will place an e-toll system on every single road you can think of I would be surprised if you don’t find them on dirt roads. And in the end petrol prices will still see an all time high.

    It is time that the responsible majority wake up and consider if they actually still can afford to keep the supper elite in power.
    peace is a state of mind
    Disclaimer: everything written by me can be considered as fictional.

  6. Thanks given for this post:

    Nickolai Naydenov (24-Sep-12)

  7. #16
    Diamond Member Citizen X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,404
    Thanks
    868
    Thanked 701 Times in 613 Posts
    "The Constitutional Court lambasted the High Court judgment of Prinsloo J in uncharacteristically harsh language for failing to make such an assessment, pointing out that it was unclear that motorists would suffer irreparable harm if the e-tolling went ahead."
    Sharade, facade, a go through the motions kind of strategy...... In my layman's opinion, there was sufficient urgency for the interim order, had the interdict not being executed, we would have been paying to use our very own roads. In principle, tax, fuel levy or even a once off gratuity payment should suffice!
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	made_at_www_txt2pic_com.jpg 
Views:	213 
Size:	69.3 KB 
ID:	2854
    “Ubuntu is the essence of being humane" Desmond Tutu
    Spelling mistakes and/or typographical errors I found in leading publications.
    Click here
    sabbaticus

  8. #17
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    22,649
    Thanks
    3,305
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanash Naick View Post
    Sharade, facade, a go through the motions kind of strategy...... In my layman's opinion, there was sufficient urgency for the interim order
    I have to say I tend to agree. Government went through the motions and ignored all inputs. They seemed to be committed before they consulted, received absolutely no endorsements for their plan, dismissed without reasons any alternatives proposed, and there's pretty clear evidence that many connecteds had got their fingers in the pie.

    And yet the Constitutional Court has a pretty strong track record of making well-reasoned judgements.

    So what are we missing?


    Does anyone have a link to the actual judgement?

  9. #18
    Diamond Member Blurock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    4,151
    Thanks
    758
    Thanked 886 Times in 735 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanash Naick View Post
    I think that all we seen from the Bill phase of etolling to the latest developments is a facade. A sharade meant to dupe the SA people into thinking that protracted debate took place, consultations were sufficient, the toll price per km is reasonable, and that South Africans want etolling!
    Here the State should have seen its subjects dissatisfaction and just scrapped the whole idea.
    Same charade of consultation and inclusive decision making that is applied in the fracking debacle still to hit us. The consequences will be very very dear indeed!
    Excellence is not a skill; its an attitude...

  10. #19
    Diamond Member Citizen X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,404
    Thanks
    868
    Thanked 701 Times in 613 Posts
    The separation of powers argument cuts both ways!!! Sanral can't play two roles 1: They your creditor, you owe them money as the debtor and 2: They also the law enforcement body to enforce your payment and 3: Nemo iuris plus rule: no one can be a judge in his own matter..Sanral will be judging you as well!
    De Lange v Smuts 1998(3) SA(CC)
    Separation of powers: Creditor cannot be given rights of the Executive i.e law enforcement rights: They bound to being bias in such enforcement in their favour: They also bound to abuse such law enforcement powers
    1. When the notion of Sanrail being granted law enforcement powers made the public rounds, it immediately struck a cord with me. It brought to recollection a leading case wherein a creditor was given law enforcement powers and the constitutional court ruled that it was in essence unconstitutional for a creditor to have law enforcement powers based on the separation of powers doctrine;
    2. Owing to the fallibility of human memory I could not recall the name of the case or the LLB subject that it belonged to, so started to look through my old textbooks and notes, and just like it goes when you looking for something, the thing you looking for will be in the last place you look. I found it! It rightfully belongs to the subject Constitutional law;
    3. There was a subsection of the insolvency act that provided that if a person was called to appear before a meeting of creditors and this person either refused to be sworn in or to produce a required book or document or answer any question the presiding officer could commit such a person to prison!
    4. The central idea is that a non judicial officer(someone not of the courts) cannot commit a person to prison. The separation of powers allow for the Judiciary, The Executive and the legislature. Judge Ackerman concluded that because non judicial governmental officers lack the independence of the judiciary, non judicial officers cannot commit an uncooperative witness to prison;
    5. The situation does somewhat change when you give a non judicial officer(Sanrail) powers of the executive or judiciary which is what is happening now. If Sanrail are given law enforcement powers it simply means that your creditor, the person who you owe money to can now wave a legal stick to you. The day this happens this will be a day that will live in infamy. Sanrail could prove to be the worst creditor you’ve ever known!!!
    6. “Judge Sachs agreed with Judge Ackermann’s majority judgment, but on separate grounds. He evaluated the constitutionality of the subsection within the context of separation of powers rather than that of freedom rights. He then applied the principle that only judicial officers should have the power to punish misconduct or penalise recalcitrance by means of imprisonment, and concluded that the subsection contravenes the principle of separation of powers as contemplated by the Constitution because it entrusts authority to order incarceration to persons who are not judicial officers. Judge Sachs consequently agrees with Judge Ackermann’s distinction, which allows magistrates to order committal to prison and denies that power to non-judicial government officials.”



    “In his majority judgment Judge Ackermann held that the subsection concerned is unconstitutional only to the extent that it authorises a presiding officer who is not a magistrate to issue a warrant committing an examinee at a creditors’ meeting to prison.”


    “Ubuntu is the essence of being humane" Desmond Tutu
    Spelling mistakes and/or typographical errors I found in leading publications.
    Click here
    sabbaticus

  11. #20
    Platinum Member sterne.law@gmail.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    1,332
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 566 Times in 413 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    The court was not asked to look at the merits, merely if the interdict should be granted. The merits of the decision will be decided at the review. The other issue is the separation of powers, which the Constitutional Court took serious issue with.
    In terms of an interdict the party seeking it must show
    There is a prima farce right at stake
    There has been or will be a threat to that right
    The balance of convenience favors the applicant
    The nut shell answer is that - if the tolls are ruled inadmissible, then the motorists can still be refunded, and thus suffer no harm. However, if the toll is declared permissible but the interdict had remained in place, the government is unable to recover the money they would have gained. Add to that the losses due to interest etc, act.
    Therefore the balance of convenience is against Urban Tolling.
    Anthony Sterne

    www.acumenholdings.co.za
    DISCLAIMER The above is merely a comment in discussion form and an open public arena. It does not constitute a legal opinion or professional advice in any manner or form.

  12. Thanks given for this post:

    Dave A (27-Sep-12)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •