Matoto v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and Others

The appellant applied in terms of section 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. The Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority refused the application, informing the appellant by letter dated 12 March 2015. Although the appellant’s attorney sent several letters expressing dissatisfaction and threatening review proceedings, no review application was instituted within the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). When the review application was eventually launched, the appellant sought condonation in terms of section 9 of PAJA for the late filing. The Free State Division of the High Court refused to extend the period and dismissed the review application without considering its merits.

The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s refusal to extend the 180-day period and dismissal of the review application were upheld.

The case reaffirms the strict application of the 180-day time limit for judicial review under PAJA and underscores the importance of providing a full and acceptable explanation when seeking an extension under section 9. It also clarifies the distinction between a true and a loose discretion and the limited circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with a lower court’s exercise of a loose discretion.