Kuisis and Another v Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority and Others (A118/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 73 (26 March 2020)

Kuisis and Another v Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority and Others (A118/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 73 (26 March 2020)

The court found that the Authority acted beyond its powers by holding the applicants liable on betting tickets that were either impossible bets or lacked consensus between the parties. The Operational Rules for Bookmakers, which bind both the Authority and the parties, clearly stipulate that bets are void if there is no possibility of winning or if there is no agreement on the terms of the bet. The Authority's initial decision to declare the tickets void was correct and was never set aside. Its subsequent attempt to impose liability and suggest an equitable settlement was unreasonable, vague, and unsupported by statutory or regulatory authority. The court held that the tickets are void...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Bernard Peter Kuisis; Applicant: Errol Martin Thomas; Respondent: Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Board of the Tourism Authority; Respondent: Jojo Daniel Fokou Tchinda; Respondent: Tsietsi Mathule
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
A118/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The Authority's decision to hold the applicants liable on the tickets is reviewed and set aside as null and void. Applicants are declared not liable for payment on the tickets. Costs awarded against the 4th respondent.
Judges
DAFFUE, RAMLAL
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Legality Review, Gambling Regulation, Contractual Consensus, Void Bets
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Legality Review Gambling Regulation Contractual Consensus Void Bets

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Peter Kuisis

Applicant

Errol Martin Thomas

Applicant

Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Board of the Tourism Authority

Respondent

Jojo Daniel Fokou Tchinda

Respondent

Tsietsi Mathule

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority acted beyond its powers in holding the applicants liable on the betting tickets.
  2. 2 Whether the Authority's decision complied with the Operational Rules for Bookmakers and the Gambling Act.
  3. 3 Whether the bets in question were void due to impossibility or lack of consensus.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Authority acted beyond its powers by holding the applicants liable on betting tickets that were either impossible bets or lacked consensus between the parties. The Operational Rules for Bookmakers, which bind both the Authority and the parties, clearly stipulate that bets are void if there is no possibility of winning or if there is no agreement on the terms of the bet. The Authority's initial decision to declare the tickets void was correct and was never set aside. Its subsequent attempt to impose liability and suggest an equitable settlement was unreasonable, vague, and unsupported by statutory or regulatory authority. The court held that the tickets are void...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Authority's decision to hold the applicants liable on the tickets is reviewed and set aside as null and void. Applicants are declared not liable for payment on the tickets. Costs awarded against the 4th respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent’s decision, as confirmed in the letters of 28 December 2017, to hold the applicants liable on the betting tickets attached to the founding affidavit as annexures “FA1.1” to “FA1.18” and “FA2.1” to “FA2.3” is reviewed and set aside as being null and void.
  • It is declared that applicants are not liable, in whole or in part, for payment of the sums reflected on the tickets.