Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd and Another v Premier of the North-West (1187/97) [1999] ZANWHC 1 (10 June 1999)

Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd and Another v Premier of the North-West (1187/97) [1999] ZANWHC 1 (10 June 1999)

The court found that no valid agreement or permit was entered into between the Applicants and the Respondent. The document relied upon by the Applicants, annexure 'APPL3', was not a contract or permit but merely a legal opinion clarifying the Applicants' temporary defence against prosecution under section 54(2) of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] ZANWHC 1
Parties
Applicant: Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Stephen Anthony Gossaynn; Respondent: Premier of North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 1999
Case Number
1187/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Mogoeng
Legal Topics
State Contracts, Authority of State Agents, Legality of Gambling Operations, Enforceability of Illegal Contracts, Declaration of Rights
Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law State Contracts Authority of State Agents Legality of Gambling Operations Enforceability of Illegal Contracts Declaration of Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Stephen Anthony Gossaynn

Applicant

Premier of North West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement or permit was entered into between the Applicants and the Respondent for the operation of gambling machines in the North West Province.
  2. 2 Whether any such agreement, if concluded, is valid and enforceable under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are entitled to a declarator recognising the alleged agreement and to the return of monies paid under it.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no valid agreement or permit was entered into between the Applicants and the Respondent. The document relied upon by the Applicants, annexure 'APPL3', was not a contract or permit but merely a legal opinion clarifying the Applicants' temporary defence against prosecution under section 54(2) of the Act. The Applicants failed to establish the existence of any oral or written agreement with the Respondent, and Jagga lacked authority to bind the State. Even if an agreement had been entered into, it would be void for illegality, as the Applicants' operations were unlawful under section 34 of the Act, which prohibits the operation of gaming machines without a licence. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
  • No order is made for the return of R100,000.00 paid by the Applicants.