CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others

Citation[2015] ZACC 23
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawProperty LawAdministrative Law

Facts of the Case

Shoprite held grocer's wine licences under the Liquor Act 27 of 1989 to sell wine in its grocery stores in the Eastern Cape. The Eastern Cape Liquor Act 10 of 2003 introduced a new regulatory framework. The transitional provisions deemed the grocer's wine licences to be registrations valid for 10 years after commencement (14 May 2004 to 14 May 2014). After 5 years, holders could apply to sell all kinds of liquor at separate premises (not in grocery stores). Shoprite did not convert its licences and they lapsed on 14 May 2014. Shoprite challenged sections 71(2) and (5) of the Eastern Cape Act as arbitrary deprivation of property under section 25(1) of the Constitution. The High Court declared the provisions invalid.

Legal Issues

  • Whether a grocer's wine licence constitutes 'property' for purposes of section 25(1) of the Constitution
  • Whether Shoprite was deprived of property by the Eastern Cape Act
  • Whether the deprivation was arbitrary
  • Whether the justifications advanced (simplification of licensing, control concerns, exposure of children to liquor) constitute sufficient reason for the deprivation

Judicial Outcome

The declaration of constitutional invalidity was not confirmed. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

A grocer's wine licence, being an enforceable personal incorporeal right with commercial value, transferability and relative permanence, constitutes property under section 25(1) of the Constitution (majority of Froneman J and Madlanga J). However, the legislative termination of such licences with a 10-year transition period and opportunity to convert to licences for selling all liquor at separate premises does not constitute arbitrary deprivation where the regulatory change is rationally related to legitimate government purposes of simplification of licensing regimes and enhanced control over liquor sales (majority of Froneman J and Moseneke DCJ on arbitrariness). The standard of review for arbitrariness varies on a sliding scale: rationality may suffice where the deprivation does not extinguish fundamental rights, while more compelling justification is required for more severe deprivations affecting core constitutional interests.

Obiter Dicta

Froneman J: Constitutional property should be conceptualized within the normative framework of the Constitution's fundamental values (dignity, equality, freedom) rather than solely through private law concepts. Property protection should serve socially-situated individual self-fulfillment, not merely economic wealth maximization. Pre-constitutional notions of vesting should not limit constitutional property. Courts should allow considerable latitude to governmental changes in regulatory frameworks. Moseneke DCJ: Not all government 'largesse' (licences, permits, welfare entitlements) should be recognized as property - this must be determined case-by-case. Liquor licences are 'bare permissions' that do not vest and are subject to legitimate state regulation. South Africa's expansive administrative law protections mean there is less need to extend property protection as widely as some other jurisdictions. Defining property too widely may make legislative regulation impracticable. Madlanga J: Property should be recognized as a self-standing right without needing to be closely linked to other rights. Economic value is relevant to determining whether something is property. The evidentiary burden on the state cannot be avoided by invoking 'legislative facts' - evidence must be contemporaneous, not ex post facto rationalizations.

Legal Significance

This judgment significantly develops South African constitutional property jurisprudence by: (1) Extending the concept of 'property' beyond traditional private law notions to include certain commercial licences, emphasizing that constitutional property must be defined from within the Constitution itself, rooted in values of dignity, equality and freedom. (2) Establishing that the level of protection depends on the connection between the property interest and other fundamental rights - stronger protection where closely linked to rights like choice of vocation. (3) Applying a sliding scale for arbitrariness from rationality to proportionality, depending on the nature and extent of deprivation. (4) Clarifying that courts should exercise restraint regarding 'legislative facts' but still require evidence, not bare assertions. (5) The case demonstrates ongoing contestation about property's meaning in post-apartheid South Africa, with different approaches reflecting tensions between individual rights and transformative state responsibilities.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 24 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy(CCT 51/12) [2013] ZACC 9
    Cites

    The Court relies on Agri SA for the proposition that certain rights may constitute property and in discussing issues relating to property, deprivation and…

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    Cites

    The Court cites Albutt for the principle that courts may not interfere with legislative or executive means simply because they do not like them, but must…

  • Camilla Jane McDowell v The Minister of Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentCase no. A 104/2007 (unreported, Cape High Court, 21 May 2007)
    Applies

    The Court applies Biowatch principles to the question of costs in the confirmation application.

  • Chevron SA (Pty) Limited v Dennis Edwin Wilson t/a Wilson's Transport and Others[2015] ZACC 15
    Cites

    The Court refers to this recent judgment where the property at issue was money in hand.

  • City of Cape Town v Commando and Others(1303/2021) [2023] ZASCA 7 (6 February 2023)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case for the proposition that it can consider issues arising from orders other than those dealing with the declaration of constitutional…

  • Electoral Commission of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others(1068/2019) [2021] ZASCA 103 (23 July 2021)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case for the principle that rationality review evaluates the relationship between means and ends, determining whether the means are…

  • Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and OthersCCT 7/98 [Decided on 14 October 1998]
    Cites

    The Court cites Fedsure in distinguishing between legislative action and administrative action and for the principle that challenges to legislation must be met…

  • Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); CCT 5/95
    Cites

    The Court cites Ferreira v Levin for the principle that constitutional challenges to legislation are objective and not subjective, and that the subjective…

  • H v Fetal Assessment Centre[2014] ZACC 34
    Cites

    The Court refers to H for the proposition that this Court has previously gained guidance from the German Basic Law and the interpretation of that law by the…

  • Jabulani Zulu and 389 Others v eThekwini Municipality and Others[2014] ZACC 17
    Cites

    The Court cites Zulu as part of the continuing development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and legal standing.

  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others[2013] ZACC 10
    Cites

    The Court refers to this case in the context of developments in the enforcement of official promises and legitimate expectations.

  • Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. t/a SABMARK International(CCT 42/04) [2005] ZACC 7 (27 May 2005)
    Cites

    The Court refers to this case as an example where courts have recognised ownership of or interest in incorporeal personal rights as protectable under the…

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another(CCT 38/10) [2010] ZACC 25
    Cites

    The Court cites Law Society for guidance on the definition of property for purposes of constitutional protection, specifically that it should not be too wide…

  • Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Finance and The Commissioner of the South African Revenue ServiceCase no 368/2001
    Applies

    The Court applies the seven-stage enquiry set out in FNB at para 46 for determining whether there has been arbitrary deprivation of property under section…

  • Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Others; Bissett v Buffalo City Municipality and Others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Housing, Gauteng and Others(CCT 57/03) [2004] ZACC 9
    Applies

    The Court applies Mkontwana to determine whether deprivation has occurred and the appropriate test for arbitrariness on a sliding scale based on the nature and…

  • National Credit Regulator v Opperman(CCT 34/12) [2012] ZACC 29
    Cites

    The Court cites Opperman for the proposition that personal rights such as enrichment claims may constitute property under section 25 and uses it to support the…

  • Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 15/10) [2010] ZACC 20
    Cites

    The Court cites Offit Enterprises in discussing deprivation of use, enjoyment and exploitation of immovable property.

  • Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Gründlingh and Others(CCT 31/05) [2006] ZACC 6
    Cites

    The Court refers to this case where loss of goodwill was accepted as protected by section 25 of the Constitution.

  • Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers2005 (1) SA 217 (CC); Case CCT 53/03
    Cites

    The Court cites PE Municipality to illustrate the history of dispossession and the need for our conception of property under the Constitution to include…

  • Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others(Case no 886/2019) [2020] ZASCA 126 (9 October 2020)
    Cites

    The Court references this case in the context of socio-economic rights possibly deserving stronger protection as property under section 25.

  • Reflect-All 1025 CC and Others v Member of the Executive Council for Public Transport, Roads and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another[2009] ZACC 24
    Cites

    The Court cites Reflect-All in discussing deprivation of use, enjoyment and exploitation of property, specifically in relation to immovable property.

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van ZylCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
    Cites

    The Court cites Affordable Medicines for the principle that freedom to choose a vocation is intrinsic to a society based on human dignity and that work is…

  • Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs: KwaZulu-Natal(78/2016) [2016] ZASCA 193
    Appeal From

    The Constitutional Court is deciding an application for confirmation of a declaration of constitutional invalidity made by the Eastern Cape Division of the…

  • S v Lawrence; S v Negal; S v Solberg[1997] ZACC 11; 1997 (4) SA 1176 (CC); 1997 (10) BCLR 1348 (CC)
    Cites

    The Court cites Lawrence for the discussion of legislative facts and the level of proof courts should require when scrutinising legislative decisions on policy…

  • The MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal v Simphiwe Shange(529/11) [2012] ZASCA 98
    Cites

    The Court cites Pillay for the relationship between human dignity and freedom, and the notion that we are not islands unto ourselves, linking this to the…

  • The Minister of Transport NO v D Du Toit(602/04) [2006] ZASCA 40
    Cites

    The Court refers to this case which dealt with gravel on land, demonstrating types of property previously recognised.

  • The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others2000 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC); Case CCT 31/99
    Cites

    The Court cites this case in the context of a discussion on the regulation of retail liquor licensing, which was found to be an area of exclusive provincial…

  • Tongoane and Others v Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others[2010] ZACC 10
    Cites

    The Court cites Tongoane in discussing the historical context of dispossession and the need to consider this when interpreting the property clause.

Cited By 5 Cases

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Link Africa (Pty) Limited and Others[2015] ZACC 29
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that property as an individual right is not absolute and is subject to societal imperatives.

  • Lötter N O and Others v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others(725/2020) [2021] ZASCA 159 (8 November 2021)
    Cites

    Cited alongside Fick and Aquatur for principles relating to the transfer of licences and the nature of agreements in respect thereof.

  • Louistef (Pty) Ltd v Snyders NO as Trustee of Louis Snyders Familie Trust(1060/2015) [2016] ZASCA 182
    Cites

    Court cited this case for the proposition that a grocer's wine licence is 'property' for purposes of s 25(1) of the Constitution and holds objective commercial…

  • Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and Another[2018] ZACC 41
    Applies

    Court applies the definition of deprivation at para 73: all that is required is interference that has a 'legally relevant impact on the rights of the affected…

  • Wallage v Williams-Ashman N O and Others(823/2020) [2023] ZASCA 44 (31 March 2023)
    Cites

    Cited to illustrate the Constitutional Court's expansive approach to the meaning of property in s 25, holding that a wine licence constitutes property.

Explore More Cases

More Constitutional Law cases

  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
  • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12
  • More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97