Gambler loses bid to claim damages from casino

A gambler who spent more than R5m ($320 000) at Sun City, even though he had put himself on the ‘banned list’, has failed in a legal bid to sue Sun International for damages. GroundUp reports that businessman Suhail Essack and his wife, Naseera Cassim, claimed Sun International had been negligent in allowing him to gamble. But Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) Acting Judge Andy Bester said Essack had been 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. His 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,’ Bester said. The provision Bester referred to is the North West Gambling Regulations, which impose an obligation on gambling licence holders to bar ‘excluded persons’ from gambling. In his claim, Essack relied on a breach of this statutory duty. Essack said after he had been designated as excluded from all gaming in Gauteng and nationally in 2017, he nevertheless obtained free and unfettered access to the casino, remained on the premises freely and unhindered, was permitted to use his wife’s card on the basis that his own card was banned and was encouraged and permitted to gamble by Sun International.

Essack also argued that Sun International had a common law duty of care to him and his wife and had been negligent in allowing him to gamble, resulting in harm to him and his wife, the GroundUp report says. Sun International raised various exceptions to his claims. Bester said: ‘It follows that the allegations contained in the particulars of claim are not sufficient to establish a claim based on a breach of statutory duty.’ Bester also said there was no evidence before him to show there had been a shift in the boni mores of society, as argued by Essack, which would allow Essack’s common law claim for damages. He ruled in favour of the exceptions raised by Sun International but gave Essack leave to amend his particulars of claim within 20 days, failing which his claim would be dismissed, with costs.