Shoprite Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Liquor Board and Others

Massmart Wholesale (Pty) Ltd, the holder of an off-consumption liquor registration certificate, applied to the Eastern Cape Liquor Board to transfer its certificate to Shoprite Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd after Shoprite acquired part of Massmart’s liquor business. The application was properly lodged and notice was served on the relevant ward councillor/ward committee as required by section 22(2)(d)(i) of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act 10 of 2003. The ward committee, however, failed to consult the community and submit the required report to the Board and the municipality. The Board issued a section 22(5) notice requiring Massmart to ensure submission of the ward committee report and, when this did not occur, refused the transfer application. Shoprite sought judicial review, arguing that the Act requires only proof of service of notice on the ward committee, not that the applicant must procure the report.

The Board’s decision refusing the transfer application was reviewed and set aside. The court declared that an applicant complies with section 22(2)(d)(i) by providing proof of service of notice on the ward committee, and that Massmart had so complied. The ward councillor was ordered to consult the community and submit the required report within ten days. The Board was directed to reconsider the transfer application upon receipt of the report. The Board was ordered to pay Shoprite’s costs, including counsel’s costs on Scale C.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 22(2)(d)(i) of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act and resolves a recurring impasse in liquor licensing practice where ward committees fail to submit reports. It confirms that applicants cannot be penalised for failures by ward committees and that refusal decisions based on such failures are reviewable for error of law. The case also reinforces principles of administrative justice, standing under PAJA, and proper statutory interpretation in the liquor licensing context.