About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAFSHC 156
|
|
Basfour 2532 (Pty) Ltd v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and Another (1853/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 156 (20 August 2015)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No.: 1853/2015
In
the matter of:
BASFOUR
2532 (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
FREE STATE GAMBLING
& LIQUOR
AUTHORITY
1
st
Respondent
THE CHAIRPERSON OF
THE FREE STATE
GAMBLING
& LIQUOR AUTHORITY
2
nd
Respondent
JUDGEMENT:
EBRAHIM,
J
HEARD
ON:
6
AUGUST 2015
DELIVERED
ON:
20
AUGUST 2015
REASONS
[1]
The applicant applied for a mandamus that the respondents be
compelled to consider the applicant’s application for a
Restaurant Registration Certificate within 21 days of the grant of
the Court Order.
[2]
The principal basis of opposition to the application was set out
succinctly in the Respondent’s Answering Affidavit dated
3 June
2015 where the deponent thereto placed responsibility for the failure
to adjudicate the applicant’s application for
the Registration
Certificate on the shoulders of the local municipality which, the
deponent categorically stated, had not placed
the respondents in
possession of its report.
[3] The evidence on the
papers revealed the following undisputed factual situation:
(a) The
applicant lodged its application for a Restaurant Registration
Certificate (“the main application”)
on 7 November 2014,
which is one day shy of 9 months prior to the date of hearing of the
present application on 6 August 2015.
(b) The main
application was served on the respondents on 20 April 2015.
(c) The
Respondents Notice of Opposition was served on the applicant’s
attorneys of record on 11 May 2015.
(d) On 14 May
2015, the first respondent, through its administration department
forwarded to the applicant’s attorney
of record the reports of
the Liquor Inspector, the South African Police Services and the
Mangaung Municipality. These reports
were annexed to the
Applicant’s Replying Affidavit as annexures “R2, R3 and
R4” respectively. The report
of the Liquor Inspector
(“R2”) was dated 23 April 2015, the Police Report (“R3”)
was dated 22 December
2014 and the Municipality’s Report “R4”)
was dated 16 January 2015.
(e) On 15 May
2015, the applicant’s attorney of record responded to the
reports as required in terms of Regulation8(2)
of the Regulations
promulgated in terms of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Act 2010
(Act 6 of 2010). The reply was served
on the first respondent
on 18 May 2015 and was annexed to the Applicant’s Replying
Affidavit as annexure “R5”.
(f)
On 26 May 2015 applicant’s attorney of record wrote to the
first respondent giving notice of an intended
application to this
court in the event the main application not being attended to and
considered by first respondent. The
first respondent’s
response was that the matter was receiving the attention of its legal
representative (the State Attorney).
[4]
The uncontroverted factual position therefore was that as at 16
January 2015, i.e. prior to the main application being launched
the
first respondent was in possession of all the relevant reports to
enable it to give due consideration to the applicant’s
application for a Restaurant Registration Certificate but, for
reasons undisclosed on the papers before me, failed to do so.
[5]
The application for the mandamus was accordingly granted.
_____________
S.
EBRAHIM, J
On
behalf of applicant:
Adv. L. le R. Pohl SC
Instructed
by:
Honey
Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of the respondents: Adv. L.
Bomela
Instructed
by:
State
Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
/EB