GAMING FOR AFRICA
Gaming For Africa
Casino International’s Africa partner is the excellent Gaming For Africa magazine, bringing you the continent’s latest developments
Court Ruling Sets Legal Precedent for Onus of Responsibility in Problem Gambling
In a court ruling that is set to firmly establish the limits of responsibility placed by gambling laws upon operators when dealing with responsible gambling, a compulsive gambler who lost R5m at Sun City while using his wife’s bank card has also lost his legal bid to sue the operator and the relevant gambling authority. The patron, a compulsive gambler who opted
for self-banning from gambling establishments, could not resist returning and subsequently lost R5,2m using his wife’s bank card. A Johannesburg High Court judge found that businessman was the author of his own misfortune. Both the patron and his wife claimed that Sun International as well as the Gambling Board were negligent in allowing him to gamble. The patron was, on his own request, not
allowed to enter any gaming entities. Thus, he claimed in court, when he showed up and blew more than R5m, he should have been stopped. The patron told the court that Sun International, which owned Sun City, knew or reasonably ought to have known, that by allowing him access to the casino, he could suffer financial harm. He claimed that he, however, obtained free and unfettered access to the casino, remained on the premises freely and unhindered and was permitted to use his wife’s card or draw money from it. This was on the basis that his card was banned from being used in the casino. He claimed as a result, he had lost R5.2m while gambling and Sun International, by allowing him to go-ahead, should be liable for his loss. According to him, the National Gambling Act and the North West Gambling Regulations impose obligations on entities such as Sun International to ensure that people banned from entering a casino and gambling, did not do so. He said in terms of the act and regulations, a banned person should never be allowed to set foot in a casino. If such a person entered a casino, his argument went, management was obliged to notify the police to evict him or her if such an excluded person refused to leave. By allowing him in the casino, Sun International
22 JULY 2022
acted in breach of these obligations and allowed him to lose all this money, the patron argued. He claimed Sun International owed him and his wife a duty of care and should reimburse them for their loss. Sun International raised several exceptions to his claim, which include that his particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action or show that Sun International has a common law duty towards the patron and his wife. Acting Judge Andy Bester said while the Gambling Act did place certain obligations on the owner of a casino, sight should not be lost of the fact that the patron was the author of his own misfortune.“Having voluntarily placed himself on the list of people excluded from gambling, he nonetheless went to the Sun City Casino and, on his own version, lost a substantial amount of money. “The plaintiff’s proposition implies that a
compulsive gambler may retain his winnings when transgressing the regulations but hold the licensee of the gambling establishment liable for his losses. Such a lopsided approach does not serve the purpose of the provision, and is not in the public interest,” the judge said. Judge Bester added that in his view, the regulations, considered as a whole and in the context of the regulation of gambling overall, did not provide that the plaintiff should be afforded a civil remedy to get his losses back. The judge ruled in favour of Sun International that the plaintiff’s particulars of claim at this stage did not disclose a cause of action. He, however, gave the plaintiff’s legal team 20 days to amend their claim. If they failed to give such notice of amendment, it would be dismissed with costs, the judge said. If upheld, the ruling may serve as a
precedent in establishing a certain amount of responsibility upon the compulsive gambler and family members, while also serving as a legal precedent in establishing the role of the responsible gambling operator.
Tsogo Sun Sells Nigerian Hotel
Kasada Albatross Holding, a Mauritius-based subsidiary of Kasada Hospitality Fund LP, is set to buy Southern Sun Ikoyi from Tsogo Sun Hotels in a US$30.4 million deal. The acquisition deal is at an advanced state after a Sale of Shares Agreement between Southern Sun Africa (SSA) and Kasada Albatross Holding, which requires SSA to dispose of all of its sale shares in its wholly owned subsidiary was made public in SENS announcment recently. Tsogo’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern Sun Africa (“SSA”) entered into a sale of shares agreement with Kasada Albatross Holding. In terms of the Sale Agreement, SSA will dispose of all of its shares in its wholly owned subsidiary, SS Ikoyi Holdings (SSIH) together with all shareholder loan claims against Ikoyi Hotels Limited (IHL) to Kasada. SSIH holds the Company’s entire interest in IHL, comprising 75.55% of the issued shares of IHL. SSA has managed the 181-bedroom hotel since 29 January 2009 and acquired its 75.55% interest in IHL on 29 June 2013. During a recent podcast with Moneyweb, Tsogo
Sun’s Marcel von Aulock said: “…The hotel in Nigeria will bring us about R660 million, and then we’ve done a deal with our sister company, Tsogo Sun Gaming. They want to take their own hotel management in-house, very much like the other casino groups do, and we’re going to get a net R250-odd million out of that. So R900 million is very material for us. We started Covid with a debt balance of R3.1 billion, and there was a lot of worry at the time that because you’re losing money you’re just going to build up a debt balance that ends up so much that you can’t get out of it.” The disposal of the Nigerian hotel comes
against the backdrop of a short announcemnt for the Group showing a 57% jump in income.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
