[2018] ZASCA 110 · case 987/2017
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Date: 12 September 2018 Status: Immediate Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Matoto v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and others (987/2017) [2018] ZASCA 110 (11 September 2018) Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down a unanimous judgment dismissing an appeal against the judgment and order of the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein. The matter concerned a review application against the decision of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority (the Authority) regarding its refusal to grant the appellant’s application in terms of s 41 of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Act 6 of 2010 for the permanent removal of the registration of a liquor licence to new premises. After having been informed by letter dated 12 March 2015 of the Authority’s decision, the Appellant’s attorney addressed a series of letters to the Authority expressing his dissatisfaction with their decision and threatening to proceed with a review application.
However, by the time the review application was launched in the high court, the 180 days envisaged in s 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) had expired. The appellant accordingly sought an order that the period be extended in terms of s 9 of PAJA. The high court (per Molitsoane AJ, Rampai J concurring) refused the extension and consequently dismissed the application without entering into the substantive merits of the review. The SCA had to first determine whether the discretion exercised by the high court in refusing the extension sought by the appellant was one in the ‘true’ or ‘loose’ sense.
The importance of the distinction is that it dictates the standard of interference on appeal. It concluded that the discretion exercised by the high courts was one in the loose sense. The SCA held that the appellant had failed to furnish a reasonably satisfactory and acceptable explanation for his delay in failing to meet the 2 180-day deadline. Accordingly, there was no warrant for it, sitting as a court of appeal, to interfere with the decision of the high court.
Published by the court for the media; it does not form part of the judgment.
The court publishes only its media summary for this judgment, above; the judgment itself is not on the court's site.
Read from the court's own list. Judgments are official texts; verify against the court's file before you rely on this page. Firms on AttorneyOS get judgments like this one against the matters they touch, in the Monday edition.