South Africa Case Law

Ithuba Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lottostar (Pty) Ltd and Others (A46/2020)

Ithuba Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lottostar (Pty) Ltd and Others (A46/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 39 (30 August 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A46/2020

Judges

Mashile, Roelofse

The court held that neither Ithuba Holdings nor the National Lotteries Commission are organs of state for purposes of section 41 of the Constitution and the Framework Act, as the Commission is a public institution excluded from the Framework Act's application. Consequently, the dispute is not intergovernmental and the requirement to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms does not apply. The preliminary defence of non-joinder was rejected, as the relief sought is against Lottostar only and does not affect other bookmakers or authorities. On the merits, the court found that Lottostar…

Source excerpt

• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Non Joinder
• Unlawful Gambling
• Exclusive Licensing

KwaZulu-Natal Bookmaker's Society and Another v Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd and Others (38728/2015)

KwaZulu-Natal Bookmaker's Society and Another v Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd and Others (38728/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 314 (7 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38728/2015

Judge

Molopa-Sethosa

The High Court dismissed bookmakers’ bid to stop tote sports betting, holding the Lotteries Act’s sports-pool definition did not bar the respondents’ operations.

• Totalisator Licensing
• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Sports Pool Betting
• Provincial Gambling Regulation
• Condonation Application
• Lotteries-act-interpretation

National Lotteries Board v Bruss and Others (730/2007)

National Lotteries Board v Bruss and Others (730/2007) [2008] ZASCA 167; 2009 (4) SA 362 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 164 (SCA) (1 December 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

730/2007

Judges

Harms, Cloete, Maya, Leach, Boruchowitz

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the National Lotteries Board has the implied statutory power to institute legal proceedings to enforce the Lotteries Act, including seeking declaratory relief. The Winikhaya competition involves a 'subscription' as defined in the Act, since both the premium SMS fee and the delivery of a postcard constitute payment or delivery for the right to compete. The dominant purpose of the Winikhaya competition is fundraising for charities, not the promotion of goods or services, and thus it does not qualify as a promotional competition under section 54 of the Act.…

Source excerpt

• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Statutory Powers Of Boards
• Unlawful Lottery
• Promotional Competition Definition

Firstrand Bank Ltd. v National Lotteries Board (385/07)

Firstrand Bank Ltd. v National Lotteries Board (385/07) [2008] ZASCA 29; [2008] 3 All SA 121 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 548 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

385/07

Judges

Howie, Streicher, Nugent, Combrinck, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Million-a-Month Account operated by Firstrand Bank constitutes a prohibited lottery under the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997. The deposit of money into the account, even if ultimately returned to the depositor, is a 'subscription' as defined in the Act because it is consideration for the right to compete for prizes allocated by chance. The possession of money transferred to the bank is irretrievably lost to the depositor for the period and is of value to both parties, thus constituting a stake. The scheme falls within the extended definition of a lottery an…

Source excerpt

• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Subscription Definition
• Promotional Competition
• Banking Products Regulation

National Lotteries Board v Firstrand Bank Limited (37196/05)

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

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

37196/05

Judge

Seriti

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 t…

Source excerpt

• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Subscription Definition
• Unlawful Lottery
• Promotional Competition
• Locus Standi
• Interdict Remedy