Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Ltd and Others (80/2004) [2005] ZASCA 19; 2005 (4) SA 67 (SCA) (29 March 2005)

Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Ltd and Others (80/2004) [2005] ZASCA 19; 2005 (4) SA 67 (SCA) (29 March 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that this was an exceptional case justifying the substitution of the court's decision for that of the Gauteng Gambling Board. The Board had already comprehensively evaluated Silverstar's application and had no substantive objections remaining. The Board's persistent opposition was based on motivations that had been superseded by events, and no new facts or expert opinions were presented to suggest a different outcome upon remittal. The delay in finalizing the licence, largely attributable to the Board's conduct, and the absence of any other viable applicants, rendered remittal pointless and procedurally unfair. The court found that the inevitability of the...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Gauteng Gambling Board; Respondent: Silverstar Development Limited; Respondent: Rhino Hotel and Resort Limited; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Gauteng for Finance and Economic Affairs; Respondent: Premier of the Province of Gauteng
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2005
Case Number
80/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo's Order Substituting Its Decision for That of the Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The order of the court a quo is amended to require the Board to award and issue a casino licence to Silverstar, subject to specified conditions.
Judges
Howie, Farlam, Cloete, Heher, Maya
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Substitution of Decision, Casino Licensing, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Land and Property Review of Administrative Action Substitution of Decision Casino Licensing Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gauteng Gambling Board

Appellant

Silverstar Development Limited

Respondent

Rhino Hotel and Resort Limited

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Gauteng for Finance and Economic Affairs

Respondent

Premier of the Province of Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo's Order Substituting Its Decision for That of the Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo was justified in substituting its own decision for that of the Gauteng Gambling Board regarding the award of a casino licence.
  2. 2 Whether remittal to the administrative body was necessary or whether the circumstances justified direct substitution.
  3. 3 Whether the Board had properly considered Silverstar's application and whether any legitimate expectation existed regarding the grant of the sixth casino licence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that this was an exceptional case justifying the substitution of the court's decision for that of the Gauteng Gambling Board. The Board had already comprehensively evaluated Silverstar's application and had no substantive objections remaining. The Board's persistent opposition was based on motivations that had been superseded by events, and no new facts or expert opinions were presented to suggest a different outcome upon remittal. The delay in finalizing the licence, largely attributable to the Board's conduct, and the absence of any other viable applicants, rendered remittal pointless and procedurally unfair. The court found that the inevitability of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The order of the court a quo is amended to require the Board to award and issue a casino licence to Silverstar, subject to specified conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The First and Third Respondents are ordered to award and issue a casino licence for the West Rand area to the Applicant in terms of the Gauteng Gambling Act, 4 of 1995, on the terms set out in its 1997 application but subject mutatis mutandis to the conditions contained in paragraphs 30, 31 and 34 of the Memorandum...