The Constitutional Court has set aside an interim order that put the Gauteng e-tolling project on review, in a judgment handed down on Thursday (20 September 2012).<\/p>\n
“The interim order granted by the high court on 28 April, 2012, is set aside,” said Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke<\/a>.<\/p>\n This was because the high court had not considered the separation of powers between the court and the executive.<\/p>\n The High Court in Pretoria granted the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa<\/a>) an interdict on April 28, ruling that a full review needed to be carried out before electronic tolling of Gauteng\u2019s highways could be put into effect.<\/p>\n The interdict prevented the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral<\/a>) from levying or collecting e-tolls pending the outcome of a judicial review.<\/p>\n Sanral and National Treasury appealed the court order.<\/p>\n Sanral argued that delays in the project, due to the court\u2019s order, prevented it from paying off debts incurred in building gantries.<\/p>\n National Treasury lawyer, Jeremy Gauntlett said High Court Judge Bill Prinsloo did not provide adequate reasons for his decision to grant the interdict.<\/p>\n Outa\u2019s lawyer, Alistair Franklin argued that Sanral\u2019s choice of e-tolling as a method of funding caused it more damage than the court order.<\/p>\n He said the interim interdict was not the cause of \u201cirreparable harm\u201d to the road agency.<\/p>\n It rather suffered \u201cself-imposed\u201d harm by not looking at alternative funding models, Franklin said.<\/p>\n The court heard that Sanral was not ready to put the project into effect, and this was reflected by the absence of a new tariff notice.<\/p>\n Sanral said public transport would be exempted from e-tolling, but these exemptions had not been published.<\/p>\n The court heard that Sanral had also not distinguished between the driver, user and owner of a vehicle who would be tolled.<\/p>\n Sanral lawyer, David Unterhalter SC submitted that the costs of collection for e-tolling should have been examined holistically.<\/p>\n He said the rate of non-compliance was not a proper reason for a review of the project.<\/p>\n He said there were measures to manage deviance, and those who did not comply would face criminal sanctions.<\/p>\n Unterhalter admitted that there were mistakes and faults with the system, but said it was ready to be introduced.<\/p>\n Related article<\/strong><\/p>\n E-toll ruling expected Thursday 20 September<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n E-tolls will become \u201ckey factors\u201d in property decisions<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n State not fighting public: Minister<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n E-toll judgement reserved<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n E-toll interdict \u201cvague\u201d, ConCourt hears<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n