Aquataur (Pty) Ltd. v Sack and Others (254/87) [1988] ZASCA 86; [1989] 1 All SA 224 (A) (1 September 1988)

Aquataur (Pty) Ltd. v Sack and Others (254/87) [1988] ZASCA 86; [1989] 1 All SA 224 (A) (1 September 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was contractually obliged under the sub-lease to restore to the fourth respondent, and thus to the first three respondents as nominees, the hotel liquor licence together with all rights and privileges attached to it, including the privilege to obtain authority to sell liquor for off-consumption. The conversion of the off-sales authority into a liquor store licence did not relieve the appellant of its obligation, as the substance of the obligation was to restore the original privileges. Section 191(a) of the Liquor Act does not invalidate such contractual undertakings, as it only applies to the relinquishment of statutory rights, not...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 86
Parties
Appellant: Aquataur (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Maureen Sack; Respondent: Wilma Norma Shein; Respondent: Leonard Philip Seimon; Respondent: House of Bacchus (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 1988
Case Number
254/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Vivier, Steyn, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Lease Agreements, Liquor Licensing, Specific Performance, Contractual Obligations
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Lease Agreements Liquor Licensing Specific Performance Contractual Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aquataur (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Maureen Sack

Respondent

Wilma Norma Shein

Respondent

Leonard Philip Seimon

Respondent

House of Bacchus (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is contractually obliged to transfer the liquor store licence to the respondents or their nominee upon termination of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether such contractual obligation is void under section 191(a) of the Liquor Act 87 of 1977.
  3. 3 Whether the non-joinder of the lessor of the premises on which the off-sales business is conducted is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was contractually obliged under the sub-lease to restore to the fourth respondent, and thus to the first three respondents as nominees, the hotel liquor licence together with all rights and privileges attached to it, including the privilege to obtain authority to sell liquor for off-consumption. The conversion of the off-sales authority into a liquor store licence did not relieve the appellant of its obligation, as the substance of the obligation was to restore the original privileges. Section 191(a) of the Liquor Act does not invalidate such contractual undertakings, as it only applies to the relinquishment of statutory rights, not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appellant is directed to take all steps within its power and sign all documents necessary to procure transfer to the first, second and third respondents or their nominee of the hotel liquor licence and the liquor store licence.