Industry Bar (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town-General Appeals Committee

The applicant, Industry Bar (Pty) Ltd, held a liquor licence for on-consumption premises known as Saint Champaigne Bar & Lounge in Cape Town. The premises fell within a general business area, with standard trading hours from 11h00 to 02h00 the following day under the City of Cape Town's Control of Undertakings That Sell Liquor to the Public By-Law of 2013. The applicant had previously been granted an extension of trading hours (from 14 February 2020 to 13 February 2021), which had expired. In July 2022, the applicant applied under section 6(1) of the By-law for a further extension of trading hours. The Sub-Council refused the application on 4 November 2022 on grounds that it was not in the public interest and there had been non-adherence to the Liquor Act. The applicant appealed to the General Appeals Committee, which heard the matter on 10 February and 10 March 2023. The respondent dismissed the appeal, citing a history of non-compliance with the Liquor Act, including trading outside permitted hours, failure to display the licence, failure to appoint a manager, noise complaints, and incidents where SAPS found the premises operating after hours with locked doors and patrons inside. The applicant then sought review of the appeal decision.

• Whether section 6(9) of the City of Cape Town's Control of Undertakings That Sell Liquor to the Public By-Law of 2013 provides a closed list (numerus clausus) of factors that the decision-maker may consider when deciding an application for extension of trading hours.
• Whether section 6(9)(d) of the By-law requires that complaints regarding a licensee's conduct must have been investigated and confirmed by a tribunal or court of law before they can be taken into account.
• Whether the 12-month period referred to in section 6(9)(d) of the By-law must be calculated from the date of the application or from the date of the appeal decision.
• Whether the respondent's decision on appeal was reviewable under sections 6(2)(e), (h) and (i) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) on grounds of taking irrelevant considerations into account, arbitrariness, bad faith or capriciousness.

The application for review and setting aside of the respondent's appeal decision was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of suit, including costs of counsel, on the party-and-party scale.

Section 6(9) of the City of Cape Town's Control of Undertakings That Sell Liquor to the Public By-Law of 2013 does not provide a closed list of factors to be considered when deciding an application for extension of trading hours. The use of the words 'include, inter alia' indicates that the listed factors are mandatory considerations, but decision-makers may also take other unspecified, relevant factors into account. Furthermore, section 6(9)(d) does not require complaints to be confirmed by a tribunal or court — investigation and confirmation by City officials suffices. The 12-month period in section 6(9)(d) refers to the 12 months preceding the application, not the date of the decision.

The court noted that although it was strictly unnecessary to assess the probity of the respondent's approach given the applicant's concession that the review depended on the court upholding its interpretation of section 6(9), it was appropriate to comment given the attacks on the respondent's bona fides. The court observed that the manner in which the respondent approached the appeal — including its careful consideration, evaluation, and weight given to various complaints and factors — demonstrated a bona fide, careful and nuanced evaluation of factors that were plainly relevant and could not be faulted.

This case provides authoritative interpretation of section 6(9) of the City of Cape Town's Control of Undertakings That Sell Liquor to the Public By-Law of 2013. It clarifies that the factors listed are not exhaustive (numerus clausus), that complaints need not be confirmed by a tribunal or court before being considered, and that the 12-month period for prior complaints is measured from the date of application, not the date of decision. The case illustrates the application of PAJA review grounds in the context of municipal liquor licensing decisions and emphasises that a history of non-compliance with liquor laws — even where a licence has been renewed under separate proceedings — remains relevant to extension of trading hours applications.