Van Zyl v Graaff-Reinet Liquor Licensing Board and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Price JP and Jennett J
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1956
• Hearing Date: 26 October 1956
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

Van Zyl v Graaff-Reinet Liquor Licensing Board and Another
1957 (2) SA 77 (E)

1957 (2) SA p77

Citation	1957 (2) SA 77 (E)
Court	Eastern Districts Local Division
Judge	Price JP and Jennett J
Heard	October 26, 1956
Judgment	November 12, 1956

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde F

Intoxicating liquor — Licences — Not competent to have two or more separate premises licensed under one licence — Off-sales privileges cannot be exercised on premises at a distance from the premises in respect of which the on-consumption licence is held — G Act 30 of 1928, sec. 64.

Headnote : Kopnota

The right of off-sales under a licence covered by the provisions of section 64 of Act 30 of 1928 can be exercised only on those premises which are licensed for the sale of liquor for on-consumption, under the on-consumption licence to which the right of off-sales is attached as a privilege. It is therefore incompetent for a licensing board to authorise a licensee under a 'section 64 licence' to sell liquor on any H premises other than those licensed for the sale of liquor for on-consumption. It is never competent to have two or more 'separate premises' licensed under one hotel liquor licence.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision of a liquor licensing board. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

1957 (2) SA p78

Gordon Davis, Q.C., for the appellant: Off-sales privileges attached to an on-consumption licence are all derived from sec. 64 (1) and (2). They are exceptional in that they are exercisable 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Act'. They attach only to such on-consumption licences A as enjoyed the right of off-sales before 1928 and can be exercised only in the case of renewals of such licences. See Lansdown, Liquor Law, 4th ed., pp. 52, 53. The purpose of the provision was to safeguard existing rights and privileges. The off-consumption privileges are part of the on-consumption licence which embraces the whole of the licensed B premises. See Siddons v Vredefort L.L.B., 1929 OPD 83 at p. 84; R v Stone, 1929 E.D.L. 251 at p. 253; R v Fairley, 1932 CPD 27 at p. 32; R v Dalton, 1938 E.D.L. 367 at pp 369 - 370; R v Nelson, 1939 AD 277 at pp. 283 - 6; R v Weinberg, 1939 AD 71 at p. 81; R v Bryant, 1936 AD 166; Lansdown, Liquor Law, pp. 218, 219. A removal of licence under sec. 43 applies, on a proper construction of sec. 43, C to the whole of it and not a portion of it such as the off-sales rights undoubtedly are. As to the definition of 'licence', see Braak v Port Elizabeth L.L.B., 1952 (3) SA 546 at pp. 548 - 50.

H. M. Bloch, Q.C. (with him H. D. Rogers), for the second respondent.

Cur. adv. vult. D

Postea (November 12th).

Judgment

Jennett, J.:

The second respondent is the holder of a hotel liquor licence, under which he is authorised also to sell liquor for E consumption off the premises. The licence is one covered by the provisions of sec. 64 of Act 30 of 1928. The hotel business is carried on on erf 1180, Church Street, Graaff-Reinet.

Second respondent gave notice to first...