FLM SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Others (Leave to Appeal) (17958/22) [2022] ZAGPPHC 591 (10 August 2022)

FLM SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Others (Leave to Appeal) (17958/22) [2022] ZAGPPHC 591 (10 August 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The elements of contempt of court were not established, and there was no basis to presume wilfulness or mala fides against the respondents. The applicants' arguments were a repetition of those previously rejected, and no compelling reason was presented to justify granting leave to appeal. The costs order was within the court's discretion and was not shown to be erroneous. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 591
Parties
Applicant: FLM SA (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Boxer Superstores (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jaco Kruger; Applicant: The Atrium Bistro (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Livinia Zest CC; Applicant: Varsity Bar (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board; Respondent: Thobile Nokulunga Magerman; Respondent: Raymond Martin
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Case Number
17958/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Contempt Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
DS Molefe
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Contempt of Court, Costs Discretion, Superior Courts Act, Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Contempt of Court Costs Discretion Superior Courts Act Urgent Application

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FLM SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Boxer Superstores (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jaco Kruger

Applicant

The Atrium Bistro (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Livinia Zest CC

Applicant

Varsity Bar (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board

Respondent

Thobile Nokulunga Magerman

Respondent

Raymond Martin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in its approach to the evidence in the contempt of court application.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the applicants was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The elements of contempt of court were not established, and there was no basis to presume wilfulness or mala fides against the respondents. The applicants' arguments were a repetition of those previously rejected, and no compelling reason was presented to justify granting leave to appeal. The costs order was within the court's discretion and was not shown to be erroneous. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.