National Lotteries Board v Firstrand Bank Limited (37196/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 106 (15 December 2006)

National Lotteries Board v Firstrand Bank Limited (37196/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 106 (15 December 2006)

The court found that the applicant, as a statutory body under the Lotteries Act, has the authority and duty to approach the court to enforce the Act and seek relief against unlawful lotteries. The respondent's competition, linked to the 'FNB Million a Month account', constitutes a lottery as defined by the Act because account holders pay a subscription—by forfeiting interest or accepting a lower interest rate—in exchange for the chance to win prizes by lot or chance. The right to participate in the draw is inseparable from opening the account and making a deposit. The facts are analogous to the Ellis Brown and Lucky Horseshoe cases, where the purchase or deposit is directly linked to the...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 106
Parties
Applicant: National Lotteries Board; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Case Number
37196/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The competition is declared unlawful and the respondent is interdicted from conducting it. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Seriti
Legal Topics
Lotteries Act Interpretation, Subscription Definition, Unlawful Lottery, Promotional Competition, Locus Standi, Interdict Remedy
Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Lotteries Act Interpretation Subscription Definition Unlawful Lottery Promotional Competition Locus Standi Interdict Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Lotteries Board

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the competition conducted by the respondent constitute an unlawful lottery under the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997?
  2. 2 Does the applicant have locus standi to bring the application for relief?
  3. 3 Is the payment or forfeiture of interest by account holders a 'subscription' under the Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, as a statutory body under the Lotteries Act, has the authority and duty to approach the court to enforce the Act and seek relief against unlawful lotteries. The respondent's competition, linked to the 'FNB Million a Month account', constitutes a lottery as defined by the Act because account holders pay a subscription—by forfeiting interest or accepting a lower interest rate—in exchange for the chance to win prizes by lot or chance. The right to participate in the draw is inseparable from opening the account and making a deposit. The facts are analogous to the Ellis Brown and Lucky Horseshoe cases, where the purchase or deposit is directly linked to the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The competition is declared unlawful and the respondent is interdicted from conducting it. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The competition conducted by the respondent for promoting the 'FNB Million a Month account' is declared unlawful under section 56(b) and 57(1)(b) of the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997.
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from conducting the competition.