Elite Bingo (UTH) Proprietary Limited v Zwane N.O. and Others (CA354/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 53; [2017] 3 All SA 236 (ECG) (11 May 2017)

Elite Bingo (UTH) Proprietary Limited v Zwane N.O. and Others (CA354/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 53; [2017] 3 All SA 236 (ECG) (11 May 2017)

The court held that the appellant's properties, although zoned 'Business 1', did not automatically permit the operation of a bingo hall, which is a regulated gambling activity requiring special municipal consent. The zoning scheme's definition of 'places of amusement' does not include gambling establishments, and the historical context confirms that gambling was unlawful when the scheme was drafted. The Board's requirement for special consent was consistent with the RFP, municipal practice, and statutory interpretation. The appellant's belief that no special consent was required was not supported by the correspondence or the regulatory framework. The Board acted lawfully and fairly in...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 53
Parties
Appellant: Elite Bingo (UTH) Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Mabutho Zwane N.O.; Respondent: Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board; Respondent: Galaxy Gaming Eastern Cape 2 Proprietary Ltd; Respondent: EC Gaming Uitenhage Proprietary Ltd; Respondent: Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 1 t/a Kerligenex; Respondent: Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 2 t/a Kerliglo
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2017
Case Number
CA354/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Outcome
The appeal on the merits is dismissed. The appeal against the costs order relating to the fifth and sixth respondents succeeds.
Judges
M Makaula, S M Mbenenge, P Mageza
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Zoning and Land Use, Gambling Licensing, Interpretation of Statutes, Procedural Fairness, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Tender Review Zoning and Land Use Gambling Licensing Interpretation of Statutes Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elite Bingo (UTH) Proprietary Limited

Appellant

Mabutho Zwane N.O.

Respondent

Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board

Respondent

Galaxy Gaming Eastern Cape 2 Proprietary Ltd

Respondent

EC Gaming Uitenhage Proprietary Ltd

Respondent

Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 1 t/a Kerligenex

Respondent

Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 2 t/a Kerliglo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's properties were sufficiently zoned to permit operation of a bingo hall without special consent.
  2. 2 Whether the Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board's disqualification of the appellant's bid was lawful and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the intervention of the fifth and sixth respondents justified a costs order against them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's properties, although zoned 'Business 1', did not automatically permit the operation of a bingo hall, which is a regulated gambling activity requiring special municipal consent. The zoning scheme's definition of 'places of amusement' does not include gambling establishments, and the historical context confirms that gambling was unlawful when the scheme was drafted. The Board's requirement for special consent was consistent with the RFP, municipal practice, and statutory interpretation. The appellant's belief that no special consent was required was not supported by the correspondence or the regulatory framework. The Board acted lawfully and fairly in...

Court Disposition

The appeal on the merits is dismissed. The appeal against the costs order relating to the fifth and sixth respondents succeeds.

Orders

  • The appeal on the merits is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall pay the first, second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the appeal.