Judicial Precedent

South African Liquor Traders Association and Others v Chairperson, Gauteng Liquor Board and Others

CitationCCT 57/05; [2006] ZACC (2 June 2006)

JurisdictionZA

Area of Law

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawLiquor Licensing and Regulatory Law

Facts of the Case

The Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003 sought for the first time to regulate and normalise shebeens through a phased-in permit system. The Act defined a "shebeen" as an unlicensed liquor operation selling less than ten cases of beer, but failed to specify the period within which that quantity had to be sold. Regulations issued under the Act granted shebeen permits that limited permit holders to selling no more than ten cases of beer per week and, in practice, restricted the type of liquor that could be sold. The applicants, comprising a liquor traders’ association, shebeen owners and liquor manufacturers, challenged the constitutionality of the definition of "shebeen" on the grounds of vagueness and irrationality, and challenged the validity of permit conditions limiting quantity and type of liquor. The Pretoria High Court, by consent and without reasons, declared part of the definition unconstitutional and severed it. Because the order involved constitutional invalidity of provincial legislation, confirmation by the Constitutional Court was required.

Judicial Outcome

The Constitutional Court confirmed the declaration of constitutional invalidity of the impugned portion of the definition of "shebeen" in section 1 of the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003, subject to determining an appropriate remedy. The Court addressed the validity of the severance order and related relief, and dealt separately with issues of costs and remedial consequences.

Legal Significance

The case is significant for reaffirming the doctrine of vagueness as an aspect of the rule of law in South African constitutional jurisprudence. It underscores that legislation regulating economic activity must be drafted with reasonable clarity so that those affected can regulate their conduct. The judgment also illustrates the Constitutional Court’s approach to constitutional remedies, particularly severance and reading-in, and highlights the Court’s supervisory role in confirming declarations of invalidity of legislation.