Vardakos and Others v Free State Gambling and Liqour Authority and Others (A265/2013) [2016] ZAFSHC 116 (30 June 2016)

Vardakos and Others v Free State Gambling and Liqour Authority and Others (A265/2013) [2016] ZAFSHC 116 (30 June 2016)

The court found that the Authority's notice inviting applications for bookmaker licences failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Act, as it did not specify the evaluation criteria and the lump sum required. This defect rendered the entire administrative process invalid, and no valid licence could be issued pursuant to such a process. The applicants' interpretation of the statutory requirements was rejected as untenable and contrary to the legislative purpose. The Authority's counter-review was brought within a reasonable time, as the illegality was only discovered after legal advice was obtained. The court held that the process must recommence de novo,...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 116
Parties
Applicant: Vasilios Vardakos; Applicant: Valerie Vassilev Vassilev; Applicant: Kyriakos Vardakos; Respondent: Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority; Respondent: The Chief Executive, Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority; Respondent: Chairperson of the Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2016
Case Number
A265/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review and Counter Review
Outcome
Counter-review by the Authority succeeds; applicants' review application dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
C Van Zyl, AMM Motimele
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness Review of Administrative Action

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

Parties

Vasilios Vardakos

Applicant

Valerie Vassilev Vassilev

Applicant

Kyriakos Vardakos

Applicant

Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority

Respondent

The Chief Executive, Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority

Respondent

Chairperson of the Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review and Counter Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority's notice inviting applications for bookmaker licences complied with section 78(1) of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Authority's refusal to grant bookmaker licences to the applicants was lawful and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the Authority's counter-review application was brought within a reasonable time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Authority's notice inviting applications for bookmaker licences failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Act, as it did not specify the evaluation criteria and the lump sum required. This defect rendered the entire administrative process invalid, and no valid licence could be issued pursuant to such a process. The applicants' interpretation of the statutory requirements was rejected as untenable and contrary to the legislative purpose. The Authority's counter-review was brought within a reasonable time, as the illegality was only discovered after legal advice was obtained. The court held that the process must recommence de novo,...

Court Disposition

Counter-review by the Authority succeeds; applicants' review application dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The counter-review succeeds and the decision, process and notices issued by the Authority in terms of section 78(1) are reviewed and set aside.
  • The Authority is directed to recommence the process de novo.