Pretoria - A compulsive gambler got himself banned from gambling establishments, but could not resist returning.
However, things got worse this time as he lost more than R5 million at Sun City using his wife’s bank card.
He was left bruised again when he lost his legal bid to sue Sun International and the Gambling Board.
A Johannesburg High Court judge found that businessman Suhail Essack was the author of his own misfortune.
Both Essack and his wife Naseera Cassim claimed that Sun International as well as the Gambling Board were negligent in allowing him to gamble.
Essack was, on his own request, not allowed to enter any gaming entities.
Thus, he said, when he showed up and blew more than R5m, he should have been stopped.
Essack 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 said 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 acted in breach of these obligations and allowed him to lose all this money, Essack 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 Essack 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 Essack 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 Essack should be afforded a civil remedy to get his losses back.
The judge ruled in favour of Sun International that Essack’s particulars of claim at this stage did not disclose a cause of action.
He, however, gave Essack’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.
Pretoria News