[ad_1]
British American Tobacco South Africa (Batsa) is preparing for another round in the ring with the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta), Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.
Last month, the Western Cape Superior Court upheld Batsa’s challenge to the controversial tobacco sales ban that was imposed during the early stages of the shutdown, declaring it unconstitutional and invalid. But Dlamini-Zuma has since launched a request for permission to appeal, which Batsa now objects to.
The tobacco giant filed a notice of intent to oppose the minister’s request on Wednesday and, if unsuccessful, also filed its own conditional request for permission to appeal certain aspects of the higher court ruling, including an order that each party pay. their own coasts.
“The ordinary rule is that costs must follow the cause in constitutional litigation where a private litigant succeeds against the state,” Batsa’s legal team said in organization documents.
“[Batsa has] has been overwhelmingly successful … Under the circumstances, this honorable court was wrong in not ordering the [state] pay [Batsa’s] costs, including the costs of two attorneys and the expenses of qualifying [Batsa’s] expert witnesses “.
In its documents, meanwhile, the Dlamini-Zuma legal team presented no less than a dozen grounds for appeal.
His attorneys argued that the court had erred in accepting evidence from Dr. Chris Proctor, an expert witness that Batsa presented.
They accused that Proctor was “partisan” and had “consistently affirmed the cause of the group British American Tobacco”, as well as that its formation was chemical, reason why it was not a medical expert.
“This honorable court was wrong in not addressing any of the [state’s] objections to Dr. Proctor’s admission
sworn statement, that is, because of his association with Batsa, he was not independent and his qualifications and training do not enable him to provide evidence as an expert on the issues expressed in his sworn statement, ”they said.
They also questioned the court’s findings that the ban and the regulations governing it had infringed on South Africans’ rights to dignity, privacy, and physical and psychological integrity, as well as their right to choose their trade or occupation, highlighting the nature temporary ban.
“The temporary ban on the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, electronic cigarettes and related products, objectively analyzed, does not impact on the choice of trades or occupations of the tobacconist and tobacco producer,” they said. “People could still choose those trades or occupations with the reasonable expectation that when the worst of the COVID-19 crisis had passed, they would be able to practice them as fully as is normally allowed.”
They argued that the evidence suggested that smokers were at risk of developing a more severe form of Covid-19 than their non-smoking counterparts and that the ban had been rational as a result.
The application has not yet been prepared for hearing.
For more news your way, download The Citizen app to ios and Android.
[ad_2]
