Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeHoexter ACJ, van Blerk JA, Ogilvie Thompson JA, Botha JA and Holmes JA
Judgment Date18 September 1961
Citation1961 (4) SA 402 (A)
Hearing Date30 August 1961
CourtAppellate Division

B Hoexter, A.C.J.:

It will be convenient to refer to the three appellants as the Company, Goolam and Ismael respectively. The record contains a certificate, signed by the Registrar of Companies, proving C that the Company was incorporated in terms of the Companies Act, 1926, on the 15th January, 1959. The Company was therefore not in existence when, on the 4th December, 1958, an application purporting to be made on its behalf, was submitted to the first respondent, to whom I shall refer as the Council. This application was one for a certificate for a trading D licence in terms of sec. 5 (3) of the Transvaal Licences Control Ordinance of 1931. It was signed at the foot as follows:

'for Rajah and Rajah (Pty.) Ltd.

G. H. Rajah.'

Not only did Goolam sign the application on behalf of the Company but he E was also declared therein to be the person 'who will be in actual control of the business.' The following further information was contained in the application:


"Full name of applicant

Goolam Hussein and Ismael Rajah (Directors).

Trade name and designation or style under which the applicant proposes to carry on the business

Rajah & Rajah (Pty.) Ltd.

Full names of all the members of the firm or partnership

Goolam Hussein Rajah and Ismael Rajah.

What is your registered name

Goolam Hussein Rajah and Ismael Rajah.'


G It may be that Goolam and Ismael did not appreciate the difference between a partnership and a company, but there can be no doubt that they intended to float a private company and that the application referred to above was made for the purpose of obtaining a licence for that private company. The Council certainly understood the application to be one not only made by a company but by a company actually in existence. The H Council could hardly have understood the application in any other sense in view of the fact that it was accompanied by a certificate dated 12th August, 1957, signed under the law as to Group Areas declaring the Company to be an Indian company and entitling its Indian manager lawfully to occupy the premises specified in the application. When the Council granted the application on the 4th December, 1958, it was under the erroneous impression that the

Hoexter ACJ

Company was actually in existence. On the 5th December, 1958, a certificate of authority for the issue of a general dealer's licence was accordingly issued to the non-existent Company and on the 10th December, the general dealer's licence authorised by the certificate was issued to A it by the Receiver of Revenue. It was only after the incorporation of the Company that the Council discovered that it had granted a certificate of authority to a non-existent Company. The Council thereupon decided to ask the Court for an order declaring the application submitted to it on the 4th December, 1958, the certificate dated 5th December, 1958, and the licence dated 15th December, 1958, to B be null and void. It cited not only the three appellants but also the second and third respondents, who have however taken no part in the proceedings at any stage and may therefore be disregarded. The Council instituted proceedings in the Transvaal Provincial Division by notice of motion. The matter was heard by KUPER, J., who granted the following order:

C '1. That the application for the general dealer's licence certificate served on the applicant Council on the 4th December is of no force and effect and consequently that the general dealer's licence certificate issued by the applicant Council on the 5th December, 1958 and the licence issued thereunder by the Receiver of Revenue on the 10th December, 1958, are both of no force and effect; and

2. That the costs of this application be paid by the first, second and third respondents jointly.'

D An appeal against this order was dismissed by a majority decision of the Full Bench of the Transvaal Provincial Division, but leave was granted to appeal to this Court.

It seems clear that the real object of the application made by the E Council was to cancel the licence of the Company. It asked for the cancellation of the licence on the ground that it had been granted on a certificate which it alleged to have been invalid because it was issued on an application which it alleged to have been invalid by reason of the fact that it was presented by Goolam on behalf of a company which was not yet in existence. There is no evidence whatever that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 practice notes
  • Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...2005 (2) SA 359 (CC) (2005 (4) BCLR 301): referred to G Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A): S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso 1996 (1) SA 388 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 748; 1995 (12) BCLR 1579; [1996] 1 All SA 11): referred to S v Boesak 2001 (1) ......
  • Judicial review of executive power : legality, rationality and reasonableness (2)
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Southern African Public Law No. 30-2, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...in the present context. It was contended atthe Labour Court that the MEC needed to approach the court in terms of sectionId para 90.231961 4 SA 402 (A) at 407 D-E.241977 3 SA 784 (A) at 792H-793G.25Municipal Manager: Quakeni Local Municipality v FV General Trading CC 2010 1 SA 356 (SCA)26pa......
  • The constitutional principle of accountability : a study of contemporary South African case law
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Southern African Public Law No. 33-1, October 2018
    • 1 October 2018
    ...54 Incidentally, the pre-constitutional era judgments of the Appellate Division in Raja & Raja (Pty) Ltd v Ventersdorp Municipality 1961 (4) SA 402 (A) at 407D–E and Transair (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission 1977 (3) SA 784 (A) at 792H–793G show that the court granted relief to the......
  • Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape
    • South Africa
    • Constitutional Court
    • 28 September 2006
    ...Commission and Another 1951 (4) SA 659 (T) at 666H - 667F; Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A) at 407B - G; Yoonuce v Pillay NO and Another 1964 (2) SA 286 (D) at [1] Judgment of Moseneke DCJ in para [1]. [2] Id in para [46]. [3] See ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
66 cases
  • Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...2005 (2) SA 359 (CC) (2005 (4) BCLR 301): referred to G Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A): S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso 1996 (1) SA 388 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 748; 1995 (12) BCLR 1579; [1996] 1 All SA 11): referred to S v Boesak 2001 (1) ......
  • Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape
    • South Africa
    • Constitutional Court
    • 28 September 2006
    ...Commission and Another 1951 (4) SA 659 (T) at 666H - 667F; Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A) at 407B - G; Yoonuce v Pillay NO and Another 1964 (2) SA 286 (D) at [1] Judgment of Moseneke DCJ in para [1]. [2] Id in para [46]. [3] See ......
  • Financial Services Board and Another v De Wet NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Others 2001 (4) SA 1184 (SCA): compared and applied Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A): Resa Pension Fund v Pension Fund Adjudicator and Others 2000 (3) SA 313 (C): dictum at 322B - C applied F Road Accident Fund v Strydom 2001 (......
  • Provisional Trustees, Alan Doggett Family Trust v Karakondis and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Cape Town Municipality and Others 1983 (2) SA 387 (C); Rajah & Rajah (Pty) Ltd and Others v I Ventersdorp Municipality and Others 1961 (4) SA 402 (A) at 408A; De Smith Judicial Review of Administrative Action 4th ed at 427. Cur adv vult. J Postea (September 26). 1992 (1) SA p35 Judgment A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Judicial review of executive power : legality, rationality and reasonableness (2)
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Southern African Public Law No. 30-2, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...in the present context. It was contended atthe Labour Court that the MEC needed to approach the court in terms of sectionId para 90.231961 4 SA 402 (A) at 407 D-E.241977 3 SA 784 (A) at 792H-793G.25Municipal Manager: Quakeni Local Municipality v FV General Trading CC 2010 1 SA 356 (SCA)26pa......
  • The constitutional principle of accountability : a study of contemporary South African case law
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Southern African Public Law No. 33-1, October 2018
    • 1 October 2018
    ...54 Incidentally, the pre-constitutional era judgments of the Appellate Division in Raja & Raja (Pty) Ltd v Ventersdorp Municipality 1961 (4) SA 402 (A) at 407D–E and Transair (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission 1977 (3) SA 784 (A) at 792H–793G show that the court granted relief to the......

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