Singh v Umzinto Rural Licensing Board and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Miller J
• Judgment Date: 11 December 1962
• Citation: 1963 (1) SA 872 (D)
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Miller, J.:

This was an application for an order setting aside the decision of the first respondent adjourning the hearing of an application by applicant for a general dealer's licence from a special meeting

Miller J

convened for that purpose to the annual meeting of first respondent on the 12th December, 1962, and for an order directing first respondent to hear the application forthwith. As the matter was one of extreme urgency from the applicant's point of view and as I had no doubt what my A judgment should be after hearing full argument on behalf of applicant and the respondent I made an order forthwith, in the terms which I shall presently repeat and indicated that reasons for judgment would be handed down later. These are the reasons.

It appears that on the 20th September, 1962, the applicant applied to the chairman of first respondent for the convening of a special meeting B of the Board for the purpose of considering his application for the grant of a general dealer's licence in respect of premises situate within its area of jurisdiction. The application was made in terms of reg. 4 (3) of the regulations published in terms of Ord. 19 of 1942 and contained in Provincial Notice 402 of 1942 as amended by Provincial C Notice 329 of 1959 dated 16th July, 1959. This regulation reads as follows:

'(3)

Any person desiring to obtain a certificate of authority, or more than one certificate of authority for the issue of a licence and for that purpose to have a special meeting of the board convened shall make application to the chairman, setting forth the grounds upon which the application is based and at the same time transmitting a fee . . .

D If the chairman is satisfied that the grounds stated are reasonable, he shall grant the application and inform the applicant of the day and time appointed by him for the sitting of the board and cause a notice of the same to be posted on the public notice board of the court house at the seat of the board: Provided that no such application shall be granted if the chairman is of opinion that the application for a certificate can conveniently be dealt with at the next ensuing meeting of the board, whether it be the annual or quarterly meeting, without subjecting the applicant to serious loss or inconvenience.'

E The chairman granted the application for the convening of a special meeting and the date thereof was fixed for 13th November, 1962. Applicant duly paid the prescribed fee for which he received a receipt and on 26th September, 1962, he duly lodged his application for a general dealer's licence to be heard on the occasion of the duly F convened special meeting. The necessary authority by the Administrator for the application to be dealt with, as required by sec. 23 (4) of Ord. 19 of 1942, was obtained and lodged. On the 13th November the special meeting was duly held and was presided over by one Jenkins, who acted as chairman in the absence of the chairman who had granted the application G for the convening of the special meeting. What happened at the meeting is described by applicant's attorney, Wright, and is substantially common cause. It appears that second, third and fourth respondents appeared through their attorney to oppose the application and took a preliminary point that the application for the convening of the meeting H was irregular in that it should have been in writing. After hearing argument on this preliminary point the Board retired, ostensibly to consider its decision on the preliminary point. Approximately an hour later the members of the Board returned and the acting chairman announced that the preliminary objection taken by the objectors was not upheld. He went on to announce further that the Board had decided to adjourn the hearing of applicant's application for a general dealer's licence to the annual meeting of first respondent which would be held on 12th December. It is common cause between

Miller J

the parties to the present application that neither the applicant nor the second, third and fourth respondents at any stage applied for an adjournment nor was anybody given an opportunity of addressing the Board A or saying anything whatsoever in regard to the desirability or otherwise of an adjournment of the application to the annual meeting. It is also common cause that the Board did not give any indication to any of the parties that it was considering the adjournment of the hearing of the application at all. Applicant's attorney asked the chairman of the Board B for reasons for its decision and pointed out that this decision had been reached by the Board without affording him an opportunity of addressing any argument to it. To this eminently reasonable request and intimation, the acting chairman replied that there was no authority obliging the Board to give reasons and that he declined to give any reasons for the Board's decision. It was against the background of these facts that the present application was brought.

C Most of the argument before me was devoted to the question whether the Board's failure to allow applicant an opportunity of being heard was a gross irregularity in the proceedings, and if so, whether this Court was empowered or...