The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has ruled that Woolworths can sell liquor from its WCellar at the new Dainfern Food Emporium while its fight with the Gauteng liquor board over the licence continues. The interim order, reported by TimesLIVE on 5 October 2026 and covered by BusinessTech, is not a final licence. The court will still hear Woolworths’s application to set aside the board’s decision.
Woolworths told the court it expects the liquor section to bring in about R10.4 million a year in gross turnover, roughly R200,000 a week. The court found that a fresh licence application could not fix that loss in time.
How a 2022 approval turned into a lapsed application
According to TimesLIVE, Woolworths applied for a liquor licence for its WCellar premises at Dainfern Square Shopping Centre on 3 June 2022. On 28 October 2022 the board granted conditional approval. Woolworths had to submit photographs of the finished premises before a final inspection, and the approval set no deadline for meeting that condition.
Completion was delayed by lease negotiations, difficulty obtaining vacant possession and changes to the wider Dainfern Square development. Construction began in March 2026, and by July the premises were substantially complete. On 28 July 2026 Woolworths’s consultants sent photographs and asked for a final inspection. The next day, the board’s administrative staff refused to accept the submission.
On 19 August 2026 the board told Woolworths the application had lapsed and that it would have to reapply. BusinessTech reports that this came shortly before the store opened. Woolworths went to court on 8 September 2026.
The store itself opened at the end of August. BusinessTech described it as Woolworths’s first Gauteng Food Emporium, the retailer’s flagship food concept, which brings its most extensive food range into one location. Woolworths launched its first Food Emporium in Durbanville, Cape Town, in 2025.
The legal argument
The dispute turned on the Gauteng Liquor Act, which contains a 12-month period. TimesLIVE reports that the board argued the conditional approval lapsed automatically because the conditions were not met within 12 months. Woolworths argued that 12 months is the longest period the board may set, not an automatic deadline where the board has set none.
Acting Deputy Judge President Thifhelimbilu Mudau agreed with Woolworths. In the words TimesLIVE quotes from the judgment: “If the board fails to determine a period, it cannot later rely on its own omission to deem the application lapsed.” He relied on a 2007 decision, Tamasa Trading 208 CC v Cardoso and Another, which dealt with similar liquor licensing provisions.
The judge also held that even if the conditional approval had lapsed, the underlying application had not. TimesLIVE quotes him: “The underlying application remains valid and pending before the board.” He rejected the board’s position that Woolworths had to start again.
Why a new application was not enough
The court heard that the board has a backlog of about 2,400 applications and that a fresh application could take between six months and two years, or longer. Mudau found that a fresh application would not be an adequate remedy. Woolworths told the court it had spent about R3.56 million on the premises and employs five dedicated staff for the liquor section.
BusinessTech reports that the court said the harm to Woolworths “flows directly from the Board’s refusal to finalise an application” that already had conditional approval. Each week without sales, the court found, would divert customers to competitors permanently. The board was ordered to pay Woolworths’s costs for the urgent application on an attorney-and-client scale, a higher scale than the usual order. BusinessTech quotes the court as saying that “a punitive costs order is justified”.
What the order allows, and what comes next
Under the order, Woolworths may operate and sell liquor at Shop 11, Level 0, Dainfern Square Shopping Centre, subject to liquor laws and regulations. It must comply with trading-hour rules, the ban on selling to minors and other statutory requirements, and the board may still inspect the premises.
The order is temporary. Woolworths’s review application, which asks the court to review and set aside the board’s 19 August 2026 decision, has yet to be heard. Until then the interim order stands, and the board remains responsible for deciding the underlying licence application on its merits. Neither source reports whether the board intends to appeal.
