Mostert v North-West Provincial Liquor Board (457/02) [2003] ZANWHC 25 (12 June 2003)

Mostert v North-West Provincial Liquor Board (457/02) [2003] ZANWHC 25 (12 June 2003)

The court found that the Respondent failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule by relying on information provided by the Applicant in 1996, which was not contained in the 2002 application for removal of the liquor licence, without notifying the Applicant or affording him an opportunity to respond. The information was more than five years old, and it was unreasonable to expect the Applicant to foresee its use as if population statistics were static. The Respondent was required by law to inform the Applicant of any matter that could be a ground for objection and allow him to make representations. The Respondent's failure to do so constituted a procedural irregularity and violated both...

Citation
[2003] ZANWHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Albertus Mostert; Respondent: North West Province Provincial Liquor Board
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2003
Case Number
457/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review is granted; Respondent's decision is set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule.
Judges
S.E. Monare
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Liquor Licensing, Review of Administrative Action, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Land and Property Audi Alteram Partem Liquor Licensing Review of Administrative Action Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Albertus Mostert

Applicant

North West Province Provincial Liquor Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule in rejecting the Applicant's application for removal of the liquor licence.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent was entitled to rely on information not contained in the application for removal without notifying the Applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent misconstrued the Liquor Act No. 27 of 1989 in its decision-making process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule by relying on information provided by the Applicant in 1996, which was not contained in the 2002 application for removal of the liquor licence, without notifying the Applicant or affording him an opportunity to respond. The information was more than five years old, and it was unreasonable to expect the Applicant to foresee its use as if population statistics were static. The Respondent was required by law to inform the Applicant of any matter that could be a ground for objection and allow him to make representations. The Respondent's failure to do so constituted a procedural irregularity and violated both...

Court Disposition

Application for review is granted; Respondent's decision is set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule.

Orders

  • The decision of the Respondent rejecting the Applicant's application for removal of his liquor licence (Liquor Board reference No. NWS/020598) is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Respondent to reconsider the application for removal after notifying the Applicant of any information at its disposal not contained in the application for removal which it intends to consider.