Marius Blom Incorporated and Others v South African Revenue Services and Others (57412/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 28 (25 January 2016)

Marius Blom Incorporated and Others v South African Revenue Services and Others (57412/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 28 (25 January 2016)

The court found that the Limpopo Provincial Government has not promulgated its own liquor legislation, so Act 27 of 1989 and its regulations remain applicable in Limpopo. The regulations require that liquor licence fees be paid to the Receiver of Revenue, which is now the South African Revenue Services. The second...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Marius Blom Incorporated; Applicant: Boxer Superstores; Applicant: Robinson Liquors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Liquor Board; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2016
Case Number
57412/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Initial Urgency Struck Off
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory order issued in favour of applicants. Costs awarded against second and third respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
M.F KGANYAGO
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Action, Liquor Licensing, Doctrine of Legality, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Ultra Vires Action Liquor Licensing Doctrine of Legality Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marius Blom Incorporated

Applicant

Boxer Superstores

Applicant

Robinson Liquors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Liquor Board

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Initial Urgency Struck Off

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent acted ultra vires and unlawfully by requiring liquor licence fees to be paid to the third respondent instead of the first respondent as prescribed by Act 27 of 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are bound by the regulations under Act 27 of 1989 regarding payment of liquor licence fees.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a declaratory order enforcing payment to the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Limpopo Provincial Government has not promulgated its own liquor legislation, so Act 27 of 1989 and its regulations remain applicable in Limpopo. The regulations require that liquor licence fees be paid to the Receiver of Revenue, which is now the South African Revenue Services. The second and third respondents have no legislative authority to collect such fees directly. Their actions in requiring payment to the third respondent are ultra vires and unlawful. The doctrine of legality and the supremacy of the Constitution require that organs of state act only within powers conferred by law. The applicants are entitled to a declaratory order enforcing payment to the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory order issued in favour of applicants. Costs awarded against second and third respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • It is declared that all payments to be made in favour of the Second Respondent in terms of the provisions of Act 27 of 1989 must be made to the First Respondent at any of its offices receiving payments in the Republic of South Africa.
  • The second and third respondents are jointly and severally ordered to pay the applicants' costs, the one paying the other to be absolved.