South Africa Case Law

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Member of Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development (Gauteng) and Others (2019/11734)

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Member of Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development (Gauteng) and Others (2019/11734) [2024] ZAGPJHC 510 (30 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/11734

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that the amendment to Regulation 276 was unlawful administrative action under PAJA, as the MEC failed to engage meaningfully with Phumelela’s submissions and did not apply his mind to the material presented. The process adopted was procedurally unfair and irrational, given the drastic impact on the only affected party. The court found no constitutional basis for the counter-application challenging the pre-amendment regulation, as the Gambling Board is a provincial public entity exempt from the requirement to pay all revenue into the Provincial Revenue Fund. Applying the princip…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Regulatory Subsidy
• Gambling Regulation
• Retrospective Relief

Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd v Nailing Wen 518 (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA32/2023)

Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd v Nailing Wen 518 (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA32/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 43 (18 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA32/2023

Judges

V P Noncembu, J Eksteen, R Kruger

The court found that the respondents were operating illegal gambling activities at their premises without the requisite licences, based on uncontested evidence from the appellant's investigators. The appellant, as a licensed route operator with a proprietary and financial interest in the operation of Limited Pay-Out Machines, suffered special damage due to the respondents' unlawful competition and thus had locus standi to bring the application. The remedies provided by the National and Provincial Gambling Acts are aimed at criminal prosecution for past breaches and do not offer effective reli…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Competition
• Final Interdict
• Gambling Regulation
• Locus Standi
• Alternative Remedy
• Illegal Gambling

Vengies Gaming (Pty) Ltd v Deeps Betting Grounds (Pty) Ltd and Others (1214/2022)

Vengies Gaming (Pty) Ltd v Deeps Betting Grounds (Pty) Ltd and Others (1214/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 19 (5 May 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1214/2022

Judge

Nxumalo

The court found that while the application was sufficiently urgent to be heard, the relief sought by the applicant was incompetent in law. Granting an interim interdict to suspend the first respondent's business pending review would pre-empt the statutory process set out in Section 38 of the Northern Cape Gambling Act and violate the principle of separation of powers. The Board cannot suspend or revoke a licence without following the prescribed disciplinary procedures, and any alleged illegality in the licence must be set aside by a court before it can be disregarded. Furthermore, the applica…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Gambling Regulation
• Principle Of Legality
• Separation Of Powers

Vorster Interior Products CC v Minister of Police and Others (3580 / 2021)

Vorster Interior Products CC v Minister of Police and Others (3580 / 2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 170 (31 August 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3580 / 2021

Judge

E D Wille

The High Court dismissed a review of a search-and-seizure warrant linked to alleged unlawful gambling, finding the warrant lawful and sufficiently clear.

• Search And Seizure
• Ultra Vires
• Intelligibility Of Warrant
• Gambling Regulation
• Review Of Magistrate Order
• Search-and-seizure

Vukani Gaming Free State (Pty) Ltd v Purple Dot Investments 34 (Pty) Ltd and Others (A108/2019)

Vukani Gaming Free State (Pty) Ltd v Purple Dot Investments 34 (Pty) Ltd and Others (A108/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 75 (26 March 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A108/2019

Judges

Daffue, Mbhele, Chesiwe

The High Court struck an appeal from the roll as moot after the respondent vacated the premises. It also dismissed an application to admit new evidence on appeal.

• Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Alternative Remedy
• Mootness
• Gambling Regulation
• Further-evidence-on-appeal

Kuisis and Another v Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority and Others (A118/2018)

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

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A118/2018

Judges

DAFFUE, RAMLAL

The High Court reviewed and set aside the Authority’s decision holding two bookmakers liable on void or impossible betting tickets from the 2015 Cricket World Cup.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Legality Review
• Gambling Regulation
• Contractual Consensus
• Void Bets
• Administrative-law

Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots v Chairperson of the Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority NO and Others (6271/2018)

Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots v Chairperson of the Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority NO and Others (6271/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 80 (13 March 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6271/2018

Judges

Opperman, Van Rhyn

The High Court held that LPM licence fees were only payable for machines actually authorized and installed at licensed sites, and set aside the Authority’s broader fee decision.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Licensing Fees
• Statutory Interpretation
• Gambling Regulation
• Administrative-law
• Judicial-review

Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (1366/2015)

Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (1366/2015) [2019] ZAKZPHC 44; [2019] 3 All SA 916 (KZP) (4 July 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1366/2015

Judge

Olsen

The High Court dismissed a review over electronic bingo terminals, holding the challenge was moot and that Afrisun lacked standing against most operators.

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Locus Standi
• Mootness
• Gambling Regulation
• Joinder Of Parties
• Supplementary Affidavits

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016)

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 28 (20 April 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5475/2016

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the search and seizure warrant issued by the fourth respondent was neither overbroad nor unintelligible. The warrant was based on reasonable grounds, supported by sworn statements and ongoing investigations into suspected illegal gambling activities at the applicant's premises. The description of articles to be seized was sufficiently specific and tailored to the investigation, and the warrant met the intelligibility test required by law. The fourth respondent applied her mind to the facts presented and did not merely rubber-stamp the application. The warrant was validly…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Gambling Regulation
• Warrant Validity
• Intelligibility Test

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016)

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 50 (20 April 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5475/2016

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the search and seizure warrant issued by the fourth respondent was neither overbroad nor unintelligible. The warrant was based on sworn statements and evidence that established reasonable grounds for suspicion of ongoing illegal gambling activities at the applicant's premises. The description of articles to be seized was sufficiently connected to the investigation and tailored to the circumstances, meeting the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act and relevant case law. The fourth respondent applied her mind to the facts and did not merely rubber-stamp the applicatio…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Gambling Regulation
• Warrant Validity
• Intelligibility Test