The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

The aim of the proposed Act is to create a system that uses administrative tribunals, administrative fines and demerit points to enforce traffic laws on a national level.

The argument

OUTA argued that the Act in its current form is unconstitutional on the following grounds:

  1. In terms of our Constitution, provincial and municipal traffic regulations fall under the legislative control of each province. The Act wishes to infringe upon the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislatures.
  2. The Act wishes to infringe upon how local government is to enforce traffic and parking laws at municipal level.

OUTA is of the opinion that national government does not have the administrative power to pass legislation regulating all road traffic and offences through national legislation as this intrudes on the exclusive competence of the provinces as well as the municipalities situated in each one.

The question before the Court, therefore, was whether the proposed legislation intrudes upon the competence of local and provincial government and whether the Act will prevent local and provincial spheres of government from regulating their own affairs.

The court’s decision

Honourable Judge Basson found in favour of OUTA and agreed with its position. She concluded that, “It therefore follows in my view that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act must be declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution in its entirety. It is therefore declared that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act are unconstitutional and invalid.” Council for the Minister requested an order that a 2 year period be provided to address the shortcomings in the Act. The court went further to decide that the Act cannot be “amended” as this would not be possible due to its unconstitutionality. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

Universal Partnerships: what is required?[post_view before=""]

There is currently no statute in South Africa that regulates the relationships between cohabitees if they are not formally married.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

CSOS and the courts: where do I take my dispute?[post_view before=""]

Here’s a look at a recent case which dealt with a dispute between the body corporate and residents in a sectional title scheme.

Read More
Your Trusted Partner in Residential and Commercial Property Transfers
Legislative Guidelines

The deal collapsed – is the attorney to blame?[post_view before=""]

The case of Nienaber N.O. and van den Berg (the plaintiffs) versus Nelson and Kitching Attorneys (the defendants) highlights the criteria of the duty of care a conveyancer should be aware of when providing services to clients. In this case, the plaintiffs instituted action alleging that the defendants owed them a duty of care as conveyancers and acted negligently and in breach of such duty. Let’s take a closer look.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Court ruling: Sale of immovable property – Alienation of Land Act[post_view before=""]

In the recent case of Potgieter v Village and others, held at the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, Kimberly, the applicant applied for an urgent interdict to restrain the first and second respondents from passing transfer of a specific property. The application for the interdict was pending action by the applicant to claim transfer of the property. In this case, both parties to the contract were represented by their attorneys.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Can void sale agreements be revived?[post_view before=""]

Formalities are hugely important when it comes to the sale of immovable property, which is governed by the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The act states that no sale of land is permitted unless it has been put in writing and contained in a deed of sale – also commonly referred to as an Offer to Purchase – signed by all parties involved.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

The aim of the proposed Act is to create a system that uses administrative tribunals, administrative fines and demerit points to enforce traffic laws on a national level.

The argument

OUTA argued that the Act in its current form is unconstitutional on the following grounds:

  1. In terms of our Constitution, provincial and municipal traffic regulations fall under the legislative control of each province. The Act wishes to infringe upon the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislatures.
  2. The Act wishes to infringe upon how local government is to enforce traffic and parking laws at municipal level.

OUTA is of the opinion that national government does not have the administrative power to pass legislation regulating all road traffic and offences through national legislation as this intrudes on the exclusive competence of the provinces as well as the municipalities situated in each one.

The question before the Court, therefore, was whether the proposed legislation intrudes upon the competence of local and provincial government and whether the Act will prevent local and provincial spheres of government from regulating their own affairs.

The court’s decision

Honourable Judge Basson found in favour of OUTA and agreed with its position. She concluded that, “It therefore follows in my view that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act must be declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution in its entirety. It is therefore declared that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act are unconstitutional and invalid.” Council for the Minister requested an order that a 2 year period be provided to address the shortcomings in the Act. The court went further to decide that the Act cannot be “amended” as this would not be possible due to its unconstitutionality. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.