Aviation authority argues court usurped its powers in ‘aged’ airport equipment ruling

The SA Civil Aviation Authority (Sacca) has lodged an appeal challenging the Johannesburg high court’s order which ruled Airports Company SA (Acsa) to use a private company to change “aged” baggage screening equipment services at OR Tambo and King Shaka International airports.

Aviation Co-ordination Services (ACS), a private company providing operational support at airports managed by Acsa, won the court bid last month in the high court that allows it to replace screening equipment at the two airports.

ACS argued the change in screening equipment is key to providing safety at SA’s airports. 

The urgent court challenge stems from a wider policy legal review application between ACS and Acsa pending in court over a R3.15bn tender for baggage screening equipment services.

In May 2024, Acsa terminated ACS’s provision of the screening equipment and started an open tender process to find more companies to provide the service.

ACS lodged a review application last year to declare Acsa’s decision unlawful.

It also launched an urgent application to replace the equipment services at OR Tambo and King Shaka International airports, arguing “there is a risk that the aged and out of maintenance in-line machines will stop functioning”.

The court ruled twice in ACS’s favour. This includes the February 28 court order which Sacca is appealing.

The high court instructed Sacca to approve the replacement of the backup units within five days of the order for the replacement of those units within 10 days of this order at the two major airports pending legal battles.

Sacca filed court papers to appeal the order on Tuesday.

Sacca argues the court “usurped its powers” as an aviation authority.   

“By ordering Sacca to comply with the mandamus within 10 days of the order granted on February 28 2025, effectively, the honourable court assumed the mandate, powers and rights of Sacca as a regulatory body in civil aviation specialised matters and usurped its powers by approving the replacement of the HBS backup units,” Sacca court papers read.

Sacca wants the court to overturn its key orders in the judgment arguing it contravened its policies.

“In essence, by directing Sacca to replace the HBS [equipment] backup units, the court assumed the powers and rights of Sacca and directed it how to carry out its mandate without having regard to the applicable prescripts and policies of Sacca, which provide for the process and procedure to be followed by the relevant authority, Acsa, and only then for Sacca to make a decision as a regulatory body having applied its mind to all the relevant considerations.”

Sacca argues the court “ought” to have directed Acsa to make the application for replacement of the equipment to Sacca and not ACS.

“In directing Sacca to approve the replacement of the HBS backup units the courts effectively usurped the statutorily ordained power of the Sacca to consider whether a proper application has been made, whether such obligation complies with the relevant technical standards or not.” 

The court battle is taking place close to the Easter holidays, a busy season for the airports.

sinesiphos@businesslive.zo.za