Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 540South Africa
Her Cascades Supplies (Pty) Ltd ta Club Leo v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (2025/059406) [2025] ZAGPJHC 540 (30 May 2025)
Headnotes
in December 2024—nonetheless issued yet another temporary licence. Legal framework [10] The Liquor Board relies on section 30(3) of the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003 to justify its refusal, citing proximity to sensitive sites such as schools and churches. [11] Section 30(3) of the Gauteng Liquor Act reads as follows: “30 Consideration of applications for licences
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 540
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Her Cascades Supplies (Pty) Ltd ta Club Leo v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (2025/059406) [2025] ZAGPJHC 540 (30 May 2025)
Her Cascades Supplies (Pty) Ltd ta Club Leo v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (2025/059406) [2025] ZAGPJHC 540 (30 May 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_540.html
sino date 30 May 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER:
2025/059406
Reportable:
NO
Circulate
to Judges: NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: NO
In the matter between:-
HER
CASCADES SUPPLIES (PTY) LTD T/A CLUB LEO
Applicant
and
THE
GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LIQUOR BOARD
Respondent
JUDGMENT
FMM REID J
Introduction
[1]
The applicant (Her Cascades) submitted its application for a liquor
licence to the respondent (Gauteng Provincial Liquor
Board) on 7 June
2024. On 8 April 2005 the applicant was denied a permanent
liquor licence.
[2]
The applicant now seeks urgent relief that the decision of the
respondent dated 8 April 2025 be reviewed and set aside,
and that the
respondent be ordered to reconsider the application within a
reasonable period.
Merits
[3]
The applicant utilised the services of a professional liquor
consultant. Following the initial submission, the Gauteng
Provincial
Liquor Board (Liquor Board) issued several temporary permits to the
applicant, thereby authorising it to trade lawfully
in the interim,
pending the outcome of the final application.
[4]
Despite various written communications by the applicant requesting an
update on the status of the application, the Liquor
Board remained
unresponsive.
[5]
On 8 April 2025 the application for a liquor licence for the
applicant was ultimately denied in terms of section 30(3)
of the
Gauteng
Liquor Act
2 of 2003.
[6]
The basis for the denial was the proximity of the applicant’s
premises to a school or church within a 500-metre
radius. It is
admitted by the applicant that a school or church is located within a
500m radius of its premises.
Urgency
[7]
As mentioned, the applicant has traded with a temporary licence for a
period of 9 months. It now approaches this Court
on an urgent basis,
seeking an urgent review and setting aside of the Liquor Board’s
final decision to decline their liquor
licence. The urgency
lies in the commercial prejudice that the applicant would suffer as
it not be able to conduct business
without a liquor licence.
[8]
The applicant argues that the Liquor Board’s prior issuance of
temporary licences created a legitimate expectation
that a permanent
licence would follow. Acting on that expectation, the applicant
entered into a lease agreement and lawfully operated
the premises for
a continuous period of 9 (nine) months without objection from any
relevant authority or third party, including
any nearby school or
church.
[9]
Upon receipt of the denied application, the applicant found itself
unable to meet its rental obligations, placing its
business and
contractual relations in jeopardy. The applicant’s argument
continues that the decision was made more troubling
by the fact that
the Liquor Board had, in January 2025—
after
the decision
not to grant the licence was already taken at a meeting held in
December 2024—nonetheless issued yet another
temporary licence.
Legal
framework
[10]
The Liquor Board relies on section 30(3) of the
Gauteng
Liquor Act
2 of 2003
to justify its refusal, citing proximity to sensitive sites
such as schools and churches.
[11]
Section 30(3) of the
Gauteng
Liquor Act reads
as follows:
“
30 Consideration
of applications for licences
(1) An application for
a licence shall be considered by the local committee and referred to
the Board with recommendations whereafter
the Board shall consider
the application, and it may-
(a) refuse
the application; or
(b) grant
the application.
(2) The Board shall
grant an application for any licence if-
(a) the
premises are or will, on completion, be suitable for the purposes for
which they will be used under the
licence;
(b) the
applicant concerned is of good character and is otherwise fit to be
the holder of the licence;
(c) the
granting of the licence is in the public interest;
(d) the
possibility does not exist that the granting of the application may
cause a harmful monopolistic condition
to arise or be aggravated; or
(e) the
premises, accommodation, equipment and facilities in respect of which
the licence is to be issued are,
or will be, if the applicant is
licenced, in compliance with this Act and regulations.
(3) The Board shall
grant an application in the case of premises not situated within a
radius of five hundred (500) metres in the
vicinity of a place of
worship, educational institution, similar licensed premises, public
transport facility, or such further
distance as the Board may
determine or as may be prescribed from time to time.
”
[12]
The applicant argues that it is entitled to a permanent licence, as
the schools and churches in a vicinity of 500 meter
radius have not
complained about their business establishment.
[13]
Section 33 of the
Gauteng
Liquor Act
2 of 2003 reads as
follows:
“
33 Licences
and permits
(1) After the Board
has granted an application in terms of this Act, it shall,
subject to
section 35
, issue the licence through the local committee
to the applicant to sell the kind of liquor provided for in
this Act in
respect of the kind of licence concerned, or,
in the case of a catering or occasional permit, the kind
of liquor determined
by the local committee and specific
places on the premises which have been excluded by the local
committee in terms of
section 31(5).
(2) The Board or local
committee may at any time after the issue of a licence or permit in
terms of subsection (1) or
section 37
, by a notice delivered to the
licensee concerned-
(a) declare
the licence or permit to be subject to such conditions or further
conditions set out in the notice
it may in its discretion impose; or
(b) suspend,
withdraw or amend any condition or declaration imposed or made in
terms of this Act.”
[14]
The conditions
for liquor licenses and permits are
regulated by section 37 of the
Gauteng
Liquor Act
2 of
2003
.
Finding
[15]
The fact that the applicant had traded for a period of 9 months with
a temporary licence, does not favour the applicant
in this urgent
application. The applicant seeks the Liquor Board to urgently
review and issue a permanent liquor licence
but has taken advantage
of the 9 months in which it traded with a temporary liquor licence.
[16]
In my view, the applicant is unreasonable to approach this court on
an urgent basis, expecting to review and set aside
a decision of the
Liquor Board, where the decision took a period of 9 months to be
finalised. Had the outcome of the decision
been of cardinal
importance, one would have expected the applicant to approach the
court and seek an order that the Liquor Board
be compelled to provide
an answer to their application.
[17]
On this basis, the application is doomed for failure due to a lack of
urgency.
Costs
[18]
The general principle is that the successful party is entitled to its
costs.
[19]
I find no reason to deviate from this general principle.
[20]
The applicant should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Order:
In
the premise, the following order is granted:
(i) The application
is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
(ii) The applicant
is to pay the costs.
FMM REID
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUGENG DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
DATE
RESERVED:
15 MAY 2025
DATE HANDED DOWN:
30 MAY 2025
APPEARANCES:
FOR APPLICANT
COUNSEL:
S Madima
ATTORNEYS:
Seema Mmabatho Attorneys, Conveyancers
and Notaries
490 Zodwa Mofokeng Street
Hospital View Tembisa
Tel:
071 105 6715/065 955 8900 Email:
precious@seemaattorneys.co.za
info@seemammabathoattorneys.co.za
keletso@seemaattorneys.co.za
Ref: LEO001-KM4
FOR RESPONDENT:
COUNSEL: ADV NGOBESE
INSTRUCTED
BY:
GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LIQUOR
BOARD 124 Main Street Corner of Main and Kruis Streets (opposite
Carlton Centre), Marshalltown Johannesburg
Gauteng
paseka.matlhaku@gauteng.gov.za
Langutani.Ngobeni@gauteng.gov.za
Kanvisiwe.Mkonza@gauteng.gov.za
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Simply Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd v Securitas Technology (Pty) Ltd (2021/5691) [2025] ZAGPJHC 61 (13 January 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 61High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
For Real Chicks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mount Carmel Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/47326) [2025] ZAGPJHC 15 (16 January 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 15High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd v Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/009594) [2025] ZAGPJHC 230 (6 March 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 230High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Communication Genetics (Pty) Ltd v Schonenberger and Another (025959/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 338 (2 April 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 338High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Council for Architectural Profession v O'Reilly and Another (28641/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 559 (2 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 559High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar