An African-Indian player loses the offer to get back millions he lost at a casino


JOHANNESBURG, 5th June (PTI) – A South African gambling addict of Indian origin has lost a court case to force world-famous casino Sun City to pay back over five million Rand he lost playing there.

In the unusual case filed here in South Gauteng Superior Court, local businessman Suhail Essack, a Gauteng businessman, alleged that Sun City erred in allowing him to return to the gaming tables when he related had been placed on their banned list on legislation related to gambling addiction.

South Africa’s National Gambling Act empowers the National Gaming Board to establish and maintain a register of persons barred from entering gambling establishments, either at the request of an institution or the individual concerned.

Essack was added to this registry of his own volition in November 2017, but returned to Sun City, where he claimed in court filings that he was granted free and unrestricted access despite the restriction.

The player said Sun City erred in not only giving him access but also allowing him to use his wife’s credit card to gamble R5.2million, even though the casino knew it wasn’t his own card was.

Essack alleged that Sun City had a legal obligation not to allow him to play there once he was registered and therefore had to repay the full amount.

However, the court accepted the counter-argument from Sun International, Sun City’s holding company, that Essack’s lawsuit should be dismissed.

Acting Judge Andy Bester said that despite the legal designation he cited, Essack was involved in the gambling frenzy of his own accord.

“It must not be lost sight of that the first plaintiff is the cause of his own misfortune. After voluntarily putting himself on the gambling ban list, he still went to Sun City Casino and, in his own version, lost a significant sum of money. “Plaintiff’s allegation implies that a gambling addict can keep his winnings if he breaks the rules, but can hold the gaming establishment licensee liable for his losses. Such a unilateral approach serves neither the purpose of the regulation nor the public interest,” the judge dismissed Essack’s fee-based application. PTI FH RUP RUP RUP

(This story is published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wirefeed. ABP Live did not edit the headline or body.)


About Author

Comments are closed.