The Gauteng E-Toll Court Challenges of 2012/13:                                                                                  What do the outcomes mean for society who continue to challenge or                                           defy the payment of e-Tolls. 

It is important to note that the 2012 Application that was brought by OUTA (then known as the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance) was an application for judicial review regarding the e-toll saga.

A judicial review application is an application that can be brought against any discussion of an administrative nature, the judicial review asks the courts to set aside a decision made by an executive authority (i.e. in these circumstances, government).  One of the parameters of such an application is that the application must be brought within 180 days, after the decision was made.  

Due to the fact that the Judicial Review Application was brought in 2012, five (5) years after the decision was made (in 2007), OUTA approached the court to obtain an extension of this 180 days period, to enable them to competently challenge the administrative action (decision) that was made, arguing that the decision was kept out of sight of the public at the time.

In terms of the Application, as referred to above, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court gave judgment herein.  The important parts of the judgements are highlighted hereunder.

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that: “The stark reality remains that because of the delay in bringing the review application, five years had elapsed since the impugned decisions were taken, and that, during those five years, things have happened that cannot be undone. The clock cannot be turned back to when the toll roads were declared, and I think it would be contrary to the interests of justice to attempt to do so.  It follows that the application for an extension under section 9(1) should, in my view, be refused. 

The result, as I see it, is that we are prevented by the provisions of section 7(1) of PAJA from embarking upon the merits of the review application.

In this light, it should be apparent that the 180-day time bar in section 7(1) is confined to direct challenges by way of proceedings for judicial review. It does not limit a [defensive or] collateral challenges at all. It is, therefore, both unnecessary and inappropriate to extend the 180-day time limit in order to provide for potential collateral challenges.

We cannot avoid that limitation to our authority simply because the same questions might arise were there to be future collateral challenges, the success of which is by no means certain, that are not before us.”

The Constitutional Court also held that: “It must be added that this court is being asked to decide whether the interim interdict has been properly granted. If it were to do so, it would not usurp the role of the review court. That role will be limited to deciding the merits of the review grounds, something this court is not finally deciding.

In a dispute as the present one, this does not mean that an organ of state is immunised from judicial review only on account of separation of powers. The exercise of all public power is subject to constitutional control.  For instance, if the review court in due course were to find that SANRAL acted outside the law then it is entitled to grant effective interdictory relief. That would be so because the decisions of SANRAL would in effect be contrary to the law and thus void.”

In short, the courts held that the extension of the 180 period in terms of a judicial review application not be granted.  It also held that although the judicial review was not granted, it could not preclude any further challenge regarding the constitutionality of the e-toll scheme and thus left a door open for any future challenge. 

It is thus clear that even the Constitutional Court confirmed that the courts have not as of yet given judgment regarding the constitutionality of the e-toll scheme and that in the event that future challenge be made, it will only then be able to give proper judgment in terms of constitutionality.

Since 2016, Sanral have began to issue summonses to e-Toll defaulters and several thousand of these have been mandated to OUTA to fight on behalf of the public, in a test case, which was placed on hold by Sanral, pending a solution to the impasse being addressed by the authorities, ast the instruction of the President, the deadline of which was indicated as the end of August 2019.  


Join us and help us put a stop to eTolls for good.