Elite Bingo (UTH) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Zwane N.O and Others (4406/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 34 (24 May 2016)

Elite Bingo (UTH) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Zwane N.O and Others (4406/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 34 (24 May 2016)

The court found that the operation of a Bingo Hall was not encompassed by the definition of 'place of amusement' in the applicable zoning scheme regulations. The applicants' business use zoning certificates did not suffice to meet the essential minimum requirements of the RFP, which required proof of special consent from the municipality for the operation of a Bingo Hall. The Board's interpretation of the zoning requirements was correct in law, and its decision to disqualify the applicants' bids was lawful, reasonable, and administratively fair. The Board was not obliged to conduct a legal analysis beyond the submissions made by the applicants, who failed to provide the necessary...

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 34
Parties
Applicant: Elite Bingo (UTH) (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Elite Bingo (KWT) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mabutho Zwane N.O.; Respondent: Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board; Respondent: Galaxy Gaming Eastern Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: East Cape Gaming Uitenhage (Pty) 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
24 May 2016
Case Number
4406/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Re Argument of Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pickering
Legal Topics
Procurement Tender Review, Zoning and Land Use, Procedural Fairness, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Gambling Licensing
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Procurement Tender Review Zoning and Land Use Procedural Fairness Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elite Bingo (UTH) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Elite Bingo (KWT) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mabutho Zwane N.O.

Respondent

Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board

Respondent

Galaxy Gaming Eastern Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

East Cape Gaming Uitenhage (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 1 t/a Kerligenex

Respondent

Goldrush Bingo Eastern Cape No 2 t/a Kerliglo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Re Argument of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board lawfully disqualified the applicants' bids for bingo licences in Uitenhage and King William's Town.
  2. 2 Whether the zoning certificates and special consents provided by the applicants complied with the essential minimum requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP).
  3. 3 Whether the Board's interpretation of 'place of amusement' in the zoning scheme regulations was correct in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the operation of a Bingo Hall was not encompassed by the definition of 'place of amusement' in the applicable zoning scheme regulations. The applicants' business use zoning certificates did not suffice to meet the essential minimum requirements of the RFP, which required proof of special consent from the municipality for the operation of a Bingo Hall. The Board's interpretation of the zoning requirements was correct in law, and its decision to disqualify the applicants' bids was lawful, reasonable, and administratively fair. The Board was not obliged to conduct a legal analysis beyond the submissions made by the applicants, who failed to provide the necessary...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applications of both first and second applicants are dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the costs of first, second, third and fourth respondents, including the costs of the application for an interdict and the hearing on 4 and 5 June 2015 before Sandi J, and the costs of two counsel where employed.