Visagie v Northern Cape Liqour Board (655/06) [2007] ZANCHC 46 (29 June 2007)

Visagie v Northern Cape Liqour Board (655/06) [2007] ZANCHC 46 (29 June 2007)

The respondent unreasonably delayed the consideration of the applicants' liquor licence application, providing only sketchy and inadequate reasons for the delay. The respondent admitted that it only began processing the application after being served with the application to compel. The delay, both before and after the dissolution of the Board, demonstrated a disregard for the rights of the public and the applicants. The applicants were entitled to approach the court under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and the respondent conceded the merits of the application. There was no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2007] ZANCHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Carel Gert Visagie; Applicant: Petrus Johannes Botha; Respondent: Northern Cape Liquor Board
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Case Number
655/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Granted
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicants.
Judges
C.C Williams
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Unreasonable Delay, Judicial Review, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Unreasonable Delay Judicial Review Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carel Gert Visagie

Applicant

Petrus Johannes Botha

Applicant

Northern Cape Liquor Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acted unreasonably in delaying the decision on the applicants' liquor licence application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the application to compel a decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent unreasonably delayed the consideration of the applicants' liquor licence application, providing only sketchy and inadequate reasons for the delay. The respondent admitted that it only began processing the application after being served with the application to compel. The delay, both before and after the dissolution of the Board, demonstrated a disregard for the rights of the public and the applicants. The applicants were entitled to approach the court under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and the respondent conceded the merits of the application. There was no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.