A South African Indian-origin gambling addict has lost a court bid to force world-renowned casino venue Sun City to repay over five million rands that he lost while gambling there.In the unusual case lodged at the South Gauteng High Court here, local businessman Suhail Essack, a Gauteng businessman, claimed that Sun City had erred by allowing him back to the gaming tables when he had been placed on their banned list in terms of legislation related to compulsive gambling.The South African National Gambling Act empowers the National Gaming Board to setup and maintain a register of persons excluded from entering gambling premises, either at the request of an institution or the individual concerned.Essack was included in this register at his own request in November 2017, but returned to Sun City, where he claimed in court papers that he gained free and unfettered access despite the restriction.The gambler said Sun City had erred not only in allowing him access, but also in allowing him to use his wife’s credit card to gamble away 5.2 million rands, despite the casino knowing that it was not his own card.
Essack claimed that Sun City had a statutory duty not to allow him to gamble there again after his inclusion in the register and therefore had to repay the full amount.But the court accepted the opposing argument by Sun International, the holding company for Sun City, that Essack’s claim should be dismissed. Acting Judge Andy Bester said that Essack had engaged in the gambling spree of his own accord, despite the statutory designation he was citing.“Sight should not be lost of the fact that the first plaintiff is 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, dismissing Essack’s application with costs.
