ITP
Johannesburg, June 6
A South African Indian gambling addict has lost a court bid to force the world-renowned Sun City casino to pay more than five million rand he lost while gambling there.
In the unusual case filed in the South Gauteng High Court here, local businessman Suhail Essack, a Gauteng businessman, claimed that Sun City had erred in allowing him back to the gaming tables when he had been listed. prohibited in terms of related legislation. to compulsive gambling.
The South African National Gambling Act empowers the National Gambling Board to establish and maintain a register of persons excluded from access to gambling venues, either at the request of an institution or the person concerned.
Essack was placed on this registry at his own request in November 2017, but returned to Sun City, where he claimed in court documents that he was granted free and unrestricted access despite the restriction.
The player said that Sun City had been wrong not only to allow him access, but also to allow him to use his wife’s credit card to bet 5.2 million rand, even though the casino knew it was not his own card. .
Essack claimed that Sun City had a legal obligation not to allow him to wager there again after his listing, and therefore had to refund the full amount.
But the court accepted the opposing argument from Sun International, Sun City’s holding company, that Essack’s suit should be dismissed.
Acting Judge Andy Bester said that Essack had engaged in the gambling spree of his own free will, despite the legal designation he was citing.
“It should not be forgotten that the first applicant is the author of his own misfortune. Having voluntarily placed himself on the no-gambling list, he nonetheless went to Sun City Casino and, by his own account, lost a substantial amount of money.
“Plaintiff’s proposition implies that a compulsive gambler can withhold his winnings when he violates the rules but hold the gambling establishment’s licensee liable for his losses. Such an unbalanced approach does not serve the purpose of the provision and is not in the public interest,” the judge said, dismissing Essack’s request with costs.
