GRAAFF-REINET NEWS - Whilst the Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality (DBNLM) and Herotel are engaged in a legal tug of war, confusion relating to the installation of fibre in Graaff-Reinet persists.
The DBNLM issued a statement that Herotel's continued trenching and excavation of municipal property is unlawful as they have been interdicted by a court of law.
According to the municipality, SAPS have intervened on numerous occasions in an attempt to enforce the interim court order but Herotel's disregard for the law is evident as they continue with their operations irrespectively.
The municipality added a warning that "any person or legal entity allowing Herotel to install infrastructure on their premises might be complicit and will expose themselves to legal action".
The municipality further stated that a contempt of court application has been filed with the High Court and that residents will be updated accordingly.
In response to this, Herotel issued a statement refuting the municipality's allegations about illegal operations and contempt of court.
According to Herotel they are following a legal process through the court system which, in itself, is evidence of the fact that they are working with the court and not in contempt thereof.
Regarding the issue of complicity and possible legal action against property owners who allow Herotel access to install infrastructure on their premises, Herotel stated the following:
"As a licensed telecommunications provider, we are legally permitted to engage with private property owners and residents to arrange access to build the telecommunications network. Allowing our teams to access their private property cannot have any legal implications for property owners or residents."
Herotel is within their legal rights as Section 22 of the Electronic Communi-cations Act 36 of 2005 "confers upon them the rights of a general public servitude in respect of any land, including public land, that they need to access to carry out the functions listed in this particular section".
Herotel further stated that the role of the municipality is not to decide who does or does not get wayleaves but rather to administer the bylaws on how a wayleave is administered.
Herotel added that they spent many months, a great deal of time and legal fees in an attempt to co-operate with the municipality but that the municipality has completely neglected their duties and therefore Herotel trusts that the courts will assist them in this matter.
It has been confirmed that Herotel has applied for leave to appeal against the interim court order and, therefore, in terms of Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013, the enforcement of the order is suspended pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal.
Consequently, any attempt to enforce the order, including the attempts of the SAPS mentioned by the municipality, is unlawful.
'We bring you the latest Graaff-Reinet, Karoo news'
