Court postpones RMI’S bid to stall tyre recycling

TYRE producers will have to register by today with the controversial Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) waste tyre management plan.

This follows North Gauteng High Court Acting Judge Jan Hiemstra yesterday postponing an application by the Retail Motor Industry Organisation (RMI) for an interim urgent interdict to prevent the government from proceeding with the implementation of the Redisa waste tyre management plan.

Judge Hiemstra had earlier ruled that the RMI’s application was urgent, stating it would be “wasteful and unfortunate” if it was decided six months down the line the Redisa plan was flawed and the approval of the Redisa plan was then set aside.

He said a lot of water would by then have flowed under the bridge and it was better that the implementation of the Redisa matter was stopped until the RMI’s application for interim relief was heard.

However, Judge Hiemstra said, when postponing the matter to a date to be decided by Deputy Judge President Willem van der Merwe, the RMI and the second applicant, Circuit Fitment, would not suffer any undue harm or prejudice by tyre producers registering for the Redisa plan until there was an opportunity for another court to decide on the matter.

The court was told that the application for interim relief could be heard next month or in November and the levies to be paid to cover the cost of collecting the tyres were only applicable from January.

The full application for an order reviewing and setting aside the approval of the Redisa plan by Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa and for the Redisa plan to be referred back to Molewa for reconsideration is only likely to be heard next year.

RMI counsel Japie Vorster said Redisa was already R33 million in debt and if its plan was implemented and later set aside, it would be unable to repay the levies paid.

Vorster said the efficacy of the Redisa plan was based on it being the only waste tyre plan but the waste tyre regulations made provision for Molewa to approve more than one plan.

It was not feasible that Molewa would apply her mind properly when considering another plan when the approval of the plan she was considering would detract from the efficacy and workability of the Redisa plan that she had already approved, Vorster argued.

He said there was an ongoing right for tyre producers and dealers to submit their own plan to Molewa for approval but this provided them with “cold comfort” because there was not any right for them to have their plan approved.

Molewa had not applied her mind properly and did not act rationally in approving the Redisa plan, he added.

Vorster added that there was no evidence that if the RMI’s application for interim relief was granted it would have an immediate detrimental impact on the environment.

Salie Joubert, counsel for Molewa, said the RMI had brought its application to stall the implementation of Redisa for its own commercial interests because the RMI had not resubmitted its waste tyre plan.

Redisa counsel Abraham Louw argued there was a twoyear consultative process to get the Redisa plan approved and Redisa would suffer substantial prejudice and injustice if the application for an interdict to halt the plan was granted.