Subscribe

High Court rules in favour of Tasima

Staff Writer
By Staff Writer, ITWeb
Johannesburg, 22 Sept 2016
High Court delivers judgement in favour of Tasima after the DOT failed to comply with previous court orders.
High Court delivers judgement in favour of Tasima after the DOT failed to comply with previous court orders.

A High Court judge has ordered the Department of Transport (DOT) to pay Tasima more than R33 million within the next two days.

Tasima, which runs the Electronic National Traffic Information System (eNatis), launched an urgent application with the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria after the DOT failed to comply with payment obligations.

The company also launched an application to seek declarations that the department, director-general Kara-Vala, the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), as well as other respondents were in contempt of court orders.

In April, the courts ordered the payment of R176 million to Tasima, however the DOT and the DG did not make any payment by the specified date. Tasima launched an urgent application to the High Court requesting declarations of contempt of court and committal to prison.

This week, the High Court judge delivered a ruling in favour of Tasima's court order application.

"I find that due to the prior findings the respondents have given no valid explanation for not complying with the previous court orders...and have not discharged the burden of proof that they were not mala fide and wilful," reads the ruling.

The High Court ruling comes on the back of Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgement in favour of Tasima. Last December, the SCA ruled that there be no transfer of the eNatis system or services going forward except in terms of a "transfer management plan" envisaged in the original turnkey agreement.

The SCA also ruled that a number of the respondents, including the minister of transport and the DOT, were in breach of various judgements handed down in other courts between 2012 and 2014. The DOT and RTMC were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant.

The case is pending the outcome of an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Share