Like many South African’s Eastleigh businessman, Verna Naidoo has contacted Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) to take South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) to court.
Naidoo, the owner of a transport business, decided to seek legal action after he received a summons in 2016 to pay over R400 000 in e-toll tariffs.
He and several other individuals and business owners will be part of Outa’s test case against the agency next year.
Chief executive officer of OutaWayne Duvenage said the case against Sanral (SA National Roads Agency) will be argued by Outa’s appointed legal team, led by Gilbert Marcus.
“It will address the lawfulness of the Gauteng e-toll decision once and for all.”
Also read: Eastleigh businessman takes Sanral to court
“We believe the ruling will be in favour of the public for not acting unlawfully when deciding not to pay their e-tolls.”
“Many individuals have contacted Outa to support us in the work we do to tackle corruption and maladministration of tax-payers’ money or to have their e-toll summons attended to by our legal team.”
He said Outa was asked by many if they would defend the public following threats of legal action by Sanral in 2015.
“We do not disclose who or when people or business owners started to support Outa, or by how much,” said Duvenage.
“This process is a voluntary one and the amounts people contribute to Outa on a monthly basis is entirely up to them.”
He said people who have signed up with Outa will be assisted by the organisation in the event that they receive an e-toll summons.
Also read: Sanral comments on businessman’s intention to go to court
“We have our own legal team which helps to keep the costs low when managing the process.”
Duvenage said the defence Outa has compiled, comprises of two parts.
The first part focuses on the constitutional issues and conduct by Sanral and government bodies related to the e-toll decision.
The second part is the technical merits of the case, which focuses on whether people received their bills, photographs or had their disputes being attended to.
Like Naidoo, Duvenage believes there was insufficient public engagement on the e-toll decision, prior to the e-toll decision being approved.
“One ambiguous advert placed in six newspapers, giving the bare minimum of 30 days for comment, and only 28 responses thereto clearly indicate that virtually no-one knew about the scheme,” said Duvenage.
