Wayne Dietrechsen Trading as "The Jock & Saddle" v Enias Magate N.O. and Another

The applicant was granted a temporary liquor licence by the first and second respondents on 13 April 2015. On 11 May 2015, the applicant received a letter from the first respondent unilaterally revoking the temporary liquor licence on the grounds that the applicant had misrepresented facts to the issuing officer in his affidavit. The respondents did not communicate with the applicant regarding the alleged misrepresentation before cancelling the licence, nor was the applicant given any opportunity to answer the allegations or show cause why the licence should not be cancelled.

• Whether the first respondent was entitled to unilaterally cancel the temporary liquor licence without affording the applicant a hearing
• Whether the cancellation of the licence violated the audi alteram partem rule and principles of natural justice
• Whether the applicant was entitled to interim relief reinstating the temporary liquor licence pending review of the cancellation decision

The court granted a provisional order with the following relief: (1) The temporary liquor licence issued to the applicant on 13 April 2015 was reinstated and declared valid and effectual pending the return day; (2) In the event that the application for review is finalized before the return day, the provisional order shall be automatically discharged.

An administrative authority's decision to cancel or revoke a licence is unlawful where it is made without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard and to respond to allegations against them. The audi alteram partem rule requires that before a person's rights are taken away, they must be given a chance to present their defence. Administrative decisions affecting rights must be preceded by fair and equitable procedures, including calling upon the affected party to show cause why the adverse decision should not be taken, allowing them to state their side of the story, and conducting an objective evaluation of the facts before reaching a decision. Until an unlawful administrative decision is reviewed, the affected party is entitled to have the status quo maintained.

The court observed that unilateral cancellation of a licence where an applicant has been made to believe they can trade in a certain manner not only breaches the rules of natural justice, but may also cause the applicant to suffer a huge economic setback due to their legitimate expectation that the licence would be valid for the entire period for which it was granted. The court noted that because an administrator's decision is important as it steers people affected by it into action with the belief that all is well, such decisions cannot be arbitrarily revoked. The court cited with approval the principles stated in G. Feltoe's Guide to Zimbabwe Administrative Law (3rd edition) at page 23 regarding the fundamental nature of procedural fairness and natural justice in administrative decision-making.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it reinforces the fundamental importance of the audi alteram partem rule and principles of natural justice in administrative decision-making. The case establishes that administrative authorities cannot unilaterally revoke licences or other administrative rights without first affording affected parties an opportunity to be heard, even where alleged misrepresentation is claimed. The judgment emphasizes that adherence to procedural fairness is essential not only to ensure justice is seen to be done, but also to assist tribunals in reaching substantively correct decisions. The case also recognizes the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the context of administrative licences, holding that licence holders are entitled to expect that licences will remain valid for their stated period absent proper procedure being followed for revocation.