Vivabet (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Gambling Board (28058/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 304 (27 October 2017)

Vivabet (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Gambling Board (28058/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 304 (27 October 2017)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to the relief sought, even if open to some doubt, based on the grounds advanced under PAJA and the factual circumstances. The respondent's argument that it could revoke its previous decision was rejected, as the functus officio principle applies and no statutory provision authorizes such revocation. The respondent's objections regarding procedural compliance and the adequacy of the founding affidavit were not upheld, given the main review application was ripe for hearing and the issues were properly defined. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the applicant, as the issuance of licences to third parties would...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 304
Parties
Applicant: Vivabet (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gauteng Gambling Board
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Case Number
28058/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
WHG van der Linde
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Functus Officio, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Functus Officio Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivabet (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gauteng Gambling Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondent from proceeding with the process of issuing bookmakers' licences pending the outcome of the main review application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is functus officio and thus precluded from revoking its initial decision to refuse the licences.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a prima facie right to the relief sought despite the respondent's objections regarding procedural compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to the relief sought, even if open to some doubt, based on the grounds advanced under PAJA and the factual circumstances. The respondent's argument that it could revoke its previous decision was rejected, as the functus officio principle applies and no statutory provision authorizes such revocation. The respondent's objections regarding procedural compliance and the adequacy of the founding affidavit were not upheld, given the main review application was ripe for hearing and the issues were properly defined. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the applicant, as the issuance of licences to third parties would...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • Pending the determination of the Court in the review application under case no. 14683/2017, the respondent is interdicted from proceeding with the process of inviting, processing and consideration of applications for bookmakers’ licences.
  • The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application under case no. 28058/17, as well as all costs that have hitherto been reserved, including the costs reserved under the application brought under case no. 28395/17.