contention that it had received a valid renewal of the licence. On the appellant’s own version of events, it never accepted the terms and conditions of the first renewal. There is no allegation that the appellant, within a period of one month or at any other period, ratified the acceptance by Prins Shiimi of the terms and conditions imposed by the Minister. In the absence of the valid acceptance of the terms and conditions, it seems to me that the appellant has lost the right to rely on the first renewal as ground for the review of the decision refusing the second renewal. The court below was entirely correct in observing that the second renewal was dependent on the first renewal and that the second renewal could never have been granted or refused because the EPL had already expired and was not legally renewed. Moreover, the current case is distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the appellant, including the matter. In the applicant sought Oudekraal Oudekraal, declaratory orders, declaring amongst others, that the extensions granted by the Administrator were intra vires and that the subsequent steps involved in the establishment and approval of the township were all intra vires and of full force and effect. The High Court found that the Administrator’s extensions of time were invalid and exercised its discretion to allow the collateral challenge taking into account also the finding that the original application had not been properly considered. As previously noted, the Supreme Court of Appeal took a different view and found that the initial application of the town planning scheme had not been properly considered and that no approval should have been granted in the first place. The appellant in the present proceedings sought to review the Minister’s refusal to grant it a second renewal and prayed for an order granting it a renewal of its licence for two years the date of the judgment’. It came to light for the first time in the review ‘from
contention that it had received a valid renewal of the licence. On the appellant’s own version of events, it never accepted the terms and conditions of the first renewal. There is no allegation that the appellant, within a period of one month or at any other period, ratified the acceptance by Prins Shiimi of the terms and conditions imposed by the Minister. In the absence of the valid acceptance of the terms and conditions, it seems to me that the appellant has lost the right to rely on the first renewal as ground for the review of the decision refusing the second renewal. The court below was entirely correct in observing that the second renewal was dependent on the first renewal and that the second renewal could never have been granted or refused because the EPL had already expired and was not legally renewed. Moreover, the current case is distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the appellant, including the Oudekraal matter. In Oudekraal, the applicant sought declaratory orders, declaring amongst others, that the extensions granted by the Administrator were intra vires and that the subsequent steps involved in the establishment and approval of the township were all intra vires and of full force and effect. The High Court found that the Administrator’s extensions of time were invalid and exercised its discretion to allow the collateral challenge taking into account also the finding that the original application had not been properly considered. As previously noted, the Supreme Court of Appeal took a different view and found that the initial application of the town planning scheme had not been properly considered and that no approval should have been granted in the first place. The appellant in the present proceedings sought to review the Minister’s refusal to grant it a second renewal and prayed for an order granting it a renewal of its licence for two years ‘from the date of the judgment’. It came to light for the first time in the review