Smart and Others v Really Great Brand Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (1316/2006) [2007] ZAWCHC 73; [2008] 2 All SA 474 (C) (12 December 2007)

Smart and Others v Really Great Brand Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (1316/2006) [2007] ZAWCHC 73; [2008] 2 All SA 474 (C) (12 December 2007)

The court found that the second respondent was inextricably linked to Giovanni's through ownership of the assets, holding the liquor licence, and being the lessee of the premises at the time of the competition. This connection placed him within the prohibited categories under Regulation 5 of the Lotteries Act and the competition rules. The court further held that the modification of the rules to include a fourth finalist was arbitrary and unfair, compromising the integrity of the competition. The second respondent was not eligible to participate, and his inclusion in the final draw was invalid. The court ordered that the final draw be conducted anew, excluding the second respondent.

Citation
[2007] ZAWCHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Faith Patricia Smart; Applicant: Wade John Arthor Atherton; Applicant: Daniel Johannes Groenewald; Respondent: The Really Great Brand Company (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Georgios Ioannides
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Case Number
1316/2006
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Mandatory Relief
Outcome
Application granted. Second respondent's participation declared invalid. Final draw to be re-run excluding second respondent.
Judges
Goliath
Legal Topics
Promotional Competitions, Lotteries Act Compliance, Contest Rules Enforcement, Legitimate Expectation, Business Interest Exclusion
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Promotional Competitions Lotteries Act Compliance Contest Rules Enforcement Legitimate Expectation Business Interest Exclusion

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faith Patricia Smart

Applicant

Wade John Arthor Atherton

Applicant

Daniel Johannes Groenewald

Applicant

The Really Great Brand Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Georgios Ioannides

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Mandatory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's participation in the promotional competition was prohibited under Regulation 5 of the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997.
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of the second respondent in the final draw was contrary to the published rules of the competition.
  3. 3 Whether the final draw should be re-run excluding the second respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent was inextricably linked to Giovanni's through ownership of the assets, holding the liquor licence, and being the lessee of the premises at the time of the competition. This connection placed him within the prohibited categories under Regulation 5 of the Lotteries Act and the competition rules. The court further held that the modification of the rules to include a fourth finalist was arbitrary and unfair, compromising the integrity of the competition. The second respondent was not eligible to participate, and his inclusion in the final draw was invalid. The court ordered that the final draw be conducted anew, excluding the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Second respondent's participation declared invalid. Final draw to be re-run excluding second respondent.

Orders

  • Second respondent's participation in the promotional competition held by first respondent in September and October 2005 is declared contrary to Regulation 5 of the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997.
  • Second respondent's participation in the final draw of the promotional competition is declared invalid in terms of first respondent's published rules.