Bonnievale Wine & Brandy Co Ltd v Gordonia Liquor Licensing Board

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: van Winsen J
• Judgment Date: 13 April 1953
• Citation: 1953 (3) SA 500 (C)
• Hearing Date: 02 April 1953
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Bonnievale Wine & Brandy Co Ltd v Gordonia Liquor Licensing Board
1953 (3) SA 500 (C)

1953 (3) SA p500

Citation	1953 (3) SA 500 (C)
Court	Cape Provincial Division
Judge	van Winsen J
Heard	April 2, 1953
Judgment	April 13, 1953

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Intoxicating liquor — Licences — Review of the proceedings of a licensing Board — Board's decision set aside — When Court will B direct the issuing of a licence — Limited to cases where Court satisfied that Board could not but grant licence were matter referred back to it — Act 30 of 1928, sec. 29 (2).

Headnote : Kopnota

The powers of the Court under section 29 (2) of Act 30 of 1928 are sufficiently wide to allow the Court in appropriate circumstances to direct the issue of a liquor licence. But the cases where such a course C would be appropriate are rare and limited to those cases where the Court is satisfied that were the matter referred back to the liquor licensing board, it could not but grant the licence. For the Court to direct the issue of a licence in any other circumstances would constitute an unwarranted usurpation of the powers entrusted by the Legislature to liquor licensing boards.

Where in an application to review the proceedings of a liquor licensing D Board it appeared that the chairman's misdirection on the law had accounted for the Board refusing to renew the applicant's licence,

Held, that the applicant was entitled to an order setting the Board's decision aside with costs.

Held, further, as the Board had not considered whether the renewal was reasonably necessary in the public interest and as the Board might E desire to impose conditions, that the matter should be sent back to the Board for its decision.

Case Information

Review of the proceedings of a liquor licensing board. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

G. Gordon, Q.C. (with him M. Theron), for the applicant.

F No appearance for the respondent.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (April 13th). G

Judgment

Van Winsen, J.:

Applicant, the Bonnievale Wine and Brandy Company Limited, prays for an order reviewing and setting aside with costs the decision of the respondent Board taken in December, 1952, refusing to H renew applicant's wholesale liquor licence. Applicant also asks this Court to renew the said licence for 1953. The licence held by applicant was originally granted to one Jonker in 1947. As a result of certain company flotations and mergers applicant Company obtained the issue in its name of the licence in 1949 and it was renewed annually until respondent Board refused to do so in 1952.

Applicant in September, 1952, lodged with the magistrate in due form the application for a renewal of the licence for 1953. The

1953 (3) SA p501

Van Winsen J

Police made a general report upon all applications for renewals and a special report upon applicant's application for renewal, both reports being made under sec. 136 of the Liquor Act of 1928. In the first of these reports the relevant passage reads as follows:

'In verband met die getal lisensies vir groothandelaars wens ek die Raad se aandag daarop te vestig dat dit die oogmerke van art. 63 A verydel, en in verband hiermee wens ek die Raad toe te spreek en te versoek dat al die groothandeldranklisensies nie hernu word nie, ook om die volgende redes: Dat hulle nie die handel voorsien nie en dat 'n groot deel van hul besigheid voor 26/9/52 bestaan het uit handel met die nie-blankes.'

The special report contains the following comment:

'Die lisensie wat aangevra word is volgens my oordeel nie redelik B nodig nie vir die gerief van die publiek en dit word aanbeveel dat die lisensie nie hernu word nie.

Die lisensie doen uitsluitlik 'n kleinhandelbesigheid en was goedgekeur deur die Lisensieraad van 1946 en aangesien dit 'n kleinhandel besigheid doen verydel dit die oogmerke van art. 63 van Wet 30 van 1928.

Daar is tans 7 van hierdie lisensies in die Gordonia distrik.'

C At the hearing applicant was represented by counsel who according to the minutes inter alia dealt with that portion of the police report 'wat beweer dat die lisensies nie redelik nodig vir die gerief van die publiek is nie'. The minutes go on to detail counsel's argument upon this point.

D Respondent Board also had before it five other applications for renewals of existing wholesale liquor licences. In each case the police had, in substantially similarly worded reports to the one filed in the present case, opposed the renewals of the licences. After the respondent E Board had considered the application in private session it announced its decision in the following form:

'Met 'n meerderheid is die Raad nie bereid om enige van die groothandellisensies te hernu nie. Na die Raad se mening is hulle onnodig en is die bestaande kleinhandellisensies voldoende om die redelike behoeftes van die publiek te voorsien. Bestaande lisensies word verleng...