Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd and Another

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeVieyra AJ
Judgment Date07 May 1963
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division
Citation1963 (3) SA 372 (T)

Vieyra, A.J.:

This is an application for an order to cancel a registration certificate granted by the second respondent, the Livestock H and Meat Industries Control Board, to the first respondent permitting the latter to carry on business as a retail butcher under the name of the Checker Meat Market at 30 Bashee Street, Three Rivers Extension, Vereeniging.

It would appear that the first respondent had conducted business under the name of Heiman's Family Butchery at erf 132, Nile Avenue, Three Rivers, Vereeniging, from the 1st October, 1956, until the 1st October, 1960, but although no further business was thereafter carried

Vieyra AJ

on nevertheless it continued to hold the registration certificate and even obtained a renewal thereof on the 13th March, 1961, valid until the 31st March, 1964. It also continued to pay the rental of the premises and to take out the required licences issued by the Receiver of Revenue A at Vereeniging. The reason for so doing was because it intended to have the licence transferred to some new premises at a later stage.

On the 23rd March, 1962, an advertisement appeared in the Government Gazette and the Star newspaper being notifications that the first respondent intended to apply to the second respondent, to which I shall hereinafter refer to as the Board, for permission to transfer the B butchery 'at present conducted by us' at 8 Nile Avenue, Three Rivers, Vereeniging to 30 Bashee Street, Three Rivers Township Ext. No. 1, Vereeniging, where business was to be conducted under the name of Checker Meat Market. Objectors were invited to lodge their objections within fourteen days from date of publication. The application was C granted by the Board and the first respondent notified thereof on the 25th April, 1962.

The necessity for the obtaining of registration certificates from the Board before the business of a butchery can be carried on arises from sec. 21 of the Livestock and Meat Control Scheme issued under Proc. 265 D of 1945, as amended from time to time, in terms of the Marketing Act, 26 of 1937. In terms of that section no one is entitled to conduct such a business unless registered with the Board, which has a discretion in the matter and may also grant certificates of registration subject to such conditions as it may think fit including the determination as to the location of the business in question. The Board, subject to the E confirmation by the appropriate Minister, is entitled to prescribe regulations to be observed in relation to applications for certificates. The regulations applicable to the present matter are to be found in Government Notice 834 of the 11th May, 1956. Reg. 2 provides that every person intending to apply for registration must advertise his intention so to do once in the Government Gazette and once in a newspaper which F must be in the form prescribed in an annexure and which must invite persons who desire to object to lodge their objections within fourteen days of publication of the advertisement. There is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Kethel v Kethel's Estate 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) at 605 Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (C) Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd and Another 1963 (3) SA 372 (T) at 374H - 375A B Labuschagne v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A) Leake v Commissioner of Taxation (Sta......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......
  • Coetzee v Plywood Distributors (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...respondent is given leave to file a declaration within 14 days, failing which it will be barred from declaring, and the application for 1963 (3) SA p372 Colman absolution from the instance may be reinstated. The respondent is to pay the costs of this application on the Supreme Court scale. ......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Eastern Cape Division
    • 30 March 1967
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......
4 cases
  • Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Kethel v Kethel's Estate 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) at 605 Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (C) Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd and Another 1963 (3) SA 372 (T) at 374H - 375A B Labuschagne v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A) Leake v Commissioner of Taxation (Sta......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......
  • Coetzee v Plywood Distributors (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...respondent is given leave to file a declaration within 14 days, failing which it will be barred from declaring, and the application for 1963 (3) SA p372 Colman absolution from the instance may be reinstated. The respondent is to pay the costs of this application on the Supreme Court scale. ......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Eastern Cape Division
    • 30 March 1967
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......
4 provisions
  • Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Kethel v Kethel's Estate 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) at 605 Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (C) Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd and Another 1963 (3) SA 372 (T) at 374H - 375A B Labuschagne v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A) Leake v Commissioner of Taxation (Sta......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......
  • Coetzee v Plywood Distributors (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...respondent is given leave to file a declaration within 14 days, failing which it will be barred from declaring, and the application for 1963 (3) SA p372 Colman absolution from the instance may be reinstated. The respondent is to pay the costs of this application on the Supreme Court scale. ......
  • Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another
    • South Africa
    • Eastern Cape Division
    • 30 March 1967
    ...decision on review (Pursglove v Nelspruit Rural Licensing Board, 1948 (3) SA 337 (T); Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd. and Another, 1963 (3) SA 372 (T)). The applicant bases his case on the submission that, in all the circumstances, the first respondent, in deciding to assign the name 'Cape St.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT