Marius Blom Incorporated and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others (57412/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 683 (4 September 2014)

Marius Blom Incorporated and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others (57412/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 683 (4 September 2014)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay between December 2013, when they became aware of the payment directives, and August 2014, when the application was instituted. The urgency was deemed self-induced, and the application did not meet the requirements of Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The court declined to dismiss the application outright due to its importance to the liquor industry but struck it from the roll for lack of urgency. The request for a punitive costs order against the applicants and their legal representatives was rejected; ordinary party and party costs were awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 683
Parties
Applicant: Marius Blom Incorporated; Applicant: Boxer Super Stores; Applicant: Robinson Liquors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Liquor Board; Respondent: Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2014
Case Number
57412/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory Relief; Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Liquor Licensing, Declaratory Relief, Uniform Rule 6 12 B
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Urgency in Motion Proceedings Liquor Licensing Declaratory Relief Uniform Rule 6 12 B

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marius Blom Incorporated

Applicant

Boxer Super Stores

Applicant

Robinson Liquors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Liquor Board

Respondent

Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory Relief; Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under Uniform Rule 6(12)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the directives regarding payment for liquor licence renewals conflict with Act 27 of 1989.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent is obliged to act as collecting agent for the second respondent for liquor licence renewal payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay between December 2013, when they became aware of the payment directives, and August 2014, when the application was instituted. The urgency was deemed self-induced, and the application did not meet the requirements of Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The court declined to dismiss the application outright due to its importance to the liquor industry but struck it from the roll for lack of urgency. The request for a punitive costs order against the applicants and their legal representatives was rejected; ordinary party and party costs were awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll.
  • Costs are ordered against the applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.