Transfers in Trouble: The Legal Crisis of Liquor Licence Transfers in Gauteng

Ruan Vd Merwe
Jun 25
5 min read

Why the Gauteng Liquor Board's delays—and SAPS threats—are placing licensed businesses at risk.

📍 By Marius Blom Inc. | Liquor Licensing Attorneys – Gauteng and National

📞 012 004 0244 | ✉️ info@mariusblom.co.za

Licensed bar operating under a pending liquor licence transfer in Gauteng, South Africa

❗ Introduction

The transfer of liquor licences in Gauteng has become a legal and commercial nightmare. Despite a clear statutory process under the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003, the Gauteng Liquor Board (GLB) continues to delay, confuse, and obstruct the lawful transfer of licences—putting compliant businesses at risk of closure and prosecution.

At Marius Blom Inc., we’ve taken these matters to the High Court—and won. Here's what you need to know about your rights.

⚖️ The Legal Position: What the Courts Have Said

In Robinson Liquors (Pty) Ltd & Others v Gauteng Liquor Board and others, the High Court issued a declaratory order confirming:

“Where a licensee and a proposed licensee have applied for transfer in terms of section 104, the proposed licensee is entitled to trade—provided a responsible person has been nominated under section 40 of the Act.”

This ruling is not just a victory for the applicants—it is a legal precedent binding on the GLB and SAPS. Yet, the Board continues to claim, incorrectly, that no one may trade until the transfer is approved.

🛡️ What Is a Declaratory Order?

A declaratory order is a court’s way of clarifying the legal position on an issue of law. It's a powerful tool to stop unlawful enforcement in its tracks and restore certainty in confusing legal environments.

In this case, it confirmed:

You may trade pending transfer, if

✅ Your transfer application is lodged under section 104, and

✅ A responsible person is nominated under section 40.

🚓 SAPS Following Unlawful Instructions

Despite the court's clarity, SAPS officers continue to act on the unlawful directives of the GLB.

Businesses are:

Threatened with arrest,
Told to shut down,
At risk of having their stock seized, even with valid transfer applications lodged.

This is not only unlawful, it is a direct violation of stare decisis—the legal principle that decisions of a higher court are binding on all lower courts and authorities.

🧾 Section 40: A Nomination, Not an Application

Under Section 40 of the Gauteng Liquor Act, a licensee must nominate a responsible person to operate the licensed premises. Here's what the law says—and what the courts have confirmed:

✅ Once the prescribed form and payment are submitted to the GLB, the nomination is in place.

❌ The Liquor Board cannot “approve” or “decline” the nomination—it is not an application, but simply an nomination.

In a series of High Court decisions, including judgments by Van Der Merwe J., Preller J., and Kruger J., the courts were crystal clear: A Section 40 nomination is a nomination/appointment, not an application that requires adjudication by the Liquor Board.

The Liquor Board has, through internal practice and interpretation of the regulations, attempted to elevate this nomination into an application process.

However:

⚖️ Regulations cannot override the Act.📝 In Preller J’s declaratory order (see Order 3), it was confirmed that the nomination is in place upon lodgement.

🔒 The Liquor Board has no discretion to approve or reject such a nomination.

“It is an appointment that is required—not an application to have somebody appointed by the Liquor Board.”

These decisions form binding precedent and are enforceable against both the Liquor Board and SAPS under the stare decisis principle.

🌍 Does This Apply in Other Provinces?

Yes, if your province’s liquor legislation contains similar wording to Gauteng’s sections 104 and 40.

Under the principle of stare decisis, courts and liquor authorities in other provinces should follow the same reasoning. The Robinson judgment has national significance for all businesses operating under similar regulatory frameworks.

🎰 Knock-On Effect: Gambling Licences in Limbo

The Gauteng Gambling Board requires a valid liquor licence before it can process gambling licence applications.

But with the GLB’s failure to finalise transfers, gambling licence applications are stuck in limbo. Businesses like gaming lounges, bingo operators, and pubs cannot operate lawfully, despite complying with every requirement.

📋 What You’re Required to Do (And What’s a Lie)

✅ Lodge a section 104 transfer with supporting documents

✅ Nominate a section 40 responsible person

✅ Keep proof of payment and submission

❌ You do not need approval before the nominee can act

❌ You do not need to wait for finalisation to start trading

If anyone tells you otherwise, they’re wrong in law.

🔧 2024 Amendment: Cosmetic Fix, No Real Change

Yes, the Act was amended in 2024 (Gov. Notice No. 200, Vol. 30) to clarify that a licence must be issued, not just a certificate, upon approval of the transfer.

However, this does nothing to address the GLB’s failure to process applications within a reasonable timeframe. Some transfers remain pending for more than a decade.

✅ Your Right to Trade Is Protected by Law

If you’ve done the following:

Lodged a transfer under section 104, and
Nominated a responsible person under section 40,

Then you are lawfully entitled to trade. If SAPS or the GLB threatens to shut you down, contact us immediately.

💼 What We Can Do for You

At Marius Blom Inc., we:

Obtain interdicts against unlawful shutdowns
Unlawful arrest actions
Secure declaratory orders for licence holders
Enforce mandamus orders to compel the GLB to act
Litigate on behalf of national chains and independent traders alike
We would like to briefly refer you to further decisions of the High Court for clients, which also support your case.
1. Freefall Trading (PTY) LTD vs. the GLB and SAPS, SAPS may not close you down or seize alcohol without a warrant to do so.
2. EJJ Investments (PTY) LTD v The GLB, the holder of a restaurant licence, may in addition to providing bona fide meals and liquor, also allow patrons to dance, play music for that purpose, allow functions, cabarets, or any other activity which is not prohibited by law and particularly not by the provisions of the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003, in relation to restaurant liquor licence holder and not incompatible with a bona fide restaurant.
3. Mandlebaur v SAPS and the GLB, a licensee or nominated responsible person does not have to be on the premises at all times.