Vukani Gaming (Pty) Limited v Pillay and Others (A339/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 260 (5 December 2019)

Vukani Gaming (Pty) Limited v Pillay and Others (A339/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 260 (5 December 2019)

The court found that the Authority's decision to grant the route operator licence to Restivox was preceded by a transparent and fair public participation process, with all objections by Vukani fully canvassed and considered. Independent investigations addressed the applicant's concerns, and the amendments to Restivox's application were properly discussed and approved. The hearsay evidence relied upon by Vukani was found to be unreliable and prejudicial, and was struck out. The Authority's belated provision of reasons did not invalidate the decision, as the presumption under PAJA was rebutted by the factual record. The court held that none of the grounds for review were convincing and...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 260
Parties
Applicant: Vukani Gaming (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Mr D Pillay, The Chairperson, Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority; Respondent: Mr K Dichabe, The Chief Executive Officer, Liquor and Tourism Authority; Respondent: Liquor and Tourism Authority; Respondent: Restivox (Pty) Ltd.; Respondent: The Member of the Executive Council, Department of Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environment Affairs, Free State; Respondent: The entities listed in Annexure A (6th to 56th Respondents)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2019
Case Number
A339/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs. Condonation applications granted. Hearsay evidence struck out. Costs awarded for interlocutory applications and employment of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
A.F. Jordaan, S. Naidoo
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Review of Administrative Action, Condonation, Public Participation, Hearsay Evidence
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Review of Administrative Action Condonation Public Participation Hearsay Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vukani Gaming (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Mr D Pillay, The Chairperson, Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority

Respondent

Mr K Dichabe, The Chief Executive Officer, Liquor and Tourism Authority

Respondent

Liquor and Tourism Authority

Respondent

Restivox (Pty) Ltd.

Respondent

The Member of the Executive Council, Department of Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environment Affairs, Free State

Respondent

The entities listed in Annexure A (6th to 56th Respondents)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority's decision to grant a route operator gambling licence to Restivox should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the condonation applications by both the applicant and respondents should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether hearsay evidence in the applicant's supplementary founding affidavit should be struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Authority's decision to grant the route operator licence to Restivox was preceded by a transparent and fair public participation process, with all objections by Vukani fully canvassed and considered. Independent investigations addressed the applicant's concerns, and the amendments to Restivox's application were properly discussed and approved. The hearsay evidence relied upon by Vukani was found to be unreliable and prejudicial, and was struck out. The Authority's belated provision of reasons did not invalidate the decision, as the presumption under PAJA was rebutted by the factual record. The court held that none of the grounds for review were convincing and...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs. Condonation applications granted. Hearsay evidence struck out. Costs awarded for interlocutory applications and employment of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents' application for condonation of the late filing of answering affidavits is granted; those respondents to bear the costs of the condonation application.
  • The applicant's condonation application for late filing of answering affidavits to the condonation application is granted; the applicant to bear the costs thereof.