Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Rapholo v Gauteng Liquor Board (2025/080377) [2025] ZAGPPHC 678 (3 July 2025)
Urgent interim relief to continue liquor trading was refused. The court struck the application from the roll for lack of urgency and ordered costs against the applicant.
Shoprite Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Liquor Board and Others (EL599/2024) [2025] ZAECELLC 15 (5 June 2025)
The court held that section 22(2)(d)(i) of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act requires an applicant for transfer of a registration certificate to provide proof of service of notice on the ward committee, but does not impose a duty on the applicant to procure the ward committee's report. The statutory obligation to consult with the community and submit a report rests solely on the ward committee. The Board's refusal of Massmart's application on the basis that the applicant failed to action or cause the ward committee's report was a misinterpretation of the Act and unlawful. Shoprite was not required…
Source excerpt
Her Cascades Supplies (Pty) Ltd ta Club Leo v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (2025/059406) [2025] ZAGPJHC 540 (30 May 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent review over a denied liquor licence from the roll, finding no urgency after nine months on temporary permits.
Prepare Ways (Pty) Ltd ta Bliss Liquor Store v Gauteng Liguor Board and Others (2025/010065) [2025] ZAGPJHC 237 (5 February 2025)
Urgent interim relief was granted to suspend a liquor board decision and allow trading to continue pending Part B, with an interdict against interference.
Paradise Hotel and Entertainment Lounge (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (043519/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 48 (17 January 2025)
The High Court reviewed and set aside the liquor board’s withdrawal of a hotel liquor licence, finding it failed to consider its own Inspectorate’s report.
Matabicho (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Others (111703/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1241 (29 November 2024)
The High Court reviewed and set aside the Liquor Board’s refusal of a grocers’ wine licence, finding the decision irrational and unsupported by evidence.
Alpine House CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (064786/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 685 (11 July 2024)
The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought. The applicants could not rely directly on constitutional provisions where PAJA provides the applicable framework, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The relief sought was not competent, as the applicants did not seek judicial review and the court cannot act under PAJA outside review proceedings. The requirements for mandamus and interim interdict were not met, as there was no main dispute or status quo to preserve, and the right to trade in liquor is not a basic right but a regulated privilege. The court found…
Source excerpt
Industry Bar (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town-General Appeals Committee (7331/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 78 (12 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed a review of a refusal to extend liquor trading hours, holding that the by-law allows consideration of broader relevant factors and recent non-compliance.
Paradise Hotel and Entertainment Lounge v Gauteng Liquor Board (134629/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 39 (22 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for interim relief allowing liquorبيعات under a withdrawn licence, finding no proven irreparable harm or favourable balance of convenience.
Time Anchor Distillery (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (124397/2023; 124405/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2051 (21 December 2023)
The respondent, a public administrative body, failed to consider and finalize the applicants' liquor license applications within the statutory timeframes, causing prejudice to the applicants who are unable to conduct their businesses and earn income. The respondent did not file answering affidavits and relied solely on technical objections, which the court found insufficient. The court held that the applicants established urgency, as they would not obtain substantial redress in due course due to the clogged court rolls and ongoing prejudice. The requirements for interim relief were met: the a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
