[imagesource:flickr]

GrandWest Casino is involved in a dispute with three punters over the payment of credits totalling more than R6.24 million from a malfunctioning slot machine at the casino.

Maganathan Padayachee, Sharnetha Harilall, and Sherilee Padayachee are accused of illegally withdrawing R2.59 million from their Sun MVG (Most Valued Guest) loyalty programme cards from an automated cash machine (ACM) at the GrandWest Casino and the Sibaya Casino & Entertainment Kingdom in Durban.

The details have emerged in a judgment handed down in the Western Cape High Court last week in regards to an ‘exception application’ by SunWest International, owner and operator of GrandWest Casino and Entertainment World in Cape Town, to a counterclaim by the four punters – one of which has settled in the meantime.

SunWest said the three punters are existing Sun International customers and participants of the MVG reward program, to which membership terms and conditions apply. SunWest said that in such cases, Sun International retains the right to amend or withdraw the discounts, loyalty points, bonuses, or tier credits obtained by members.

They added that in terms of the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Act and its regulations, it has various disclaimer notices situated at places such as the entrance to GrandWest, the cash desks in the casino area, and all the slot machines in the casino area.

According to SunWest, these disclaimer notices include the following:

“It is possible for electronic equipment and slot machines operated on these premises to malfunction. The operator reserves the right to verify such equipment and machines prior to making payments or rewards in respect of winnings and/or prizes.”

“Jackpots paid subject to all technical and electronic verification being positive. Malfunction voids all plays and pays.”

According to a report in Moneyweb, SunWest claims that between January 26 and 29, 2023, the three punters entered its GrandWest location and engaged in gaming activities, including playing slot machines.

It said that on January 26, 2023, Maganathan Padayachee observed a problem with a certain slot machine while playing it. SunWest further claimed that after recognising that this machine was malfunctioning, Padayachee – through the allegedly intentional and fraudulent use of his MVG card – unlawfully received credits from this machine totalling R1 075 772.90.

Maganathan Padayachee withdrew R24 000 in cash and requested the sum of R1 047 433.80 be transferred from GrandWest to Sibaya where he withdrew R1 million in two tranches of R100 000 and R900 000 in cash from the cashier.

Padayachee allegedly returned to GrandWest on 27 January 2023, and after confirming that the machine was still malfunctioning, allegedly unlawfully received credits from this machine totalling R2 484 634.97 through the ‘intentional and fraudulent’ use of his MVG card and day visitor card.

SunWest claimed Harilall and Sherilee Padayachee used the same or similar method on January 27 and 28, 2023, and that from January 26 to 29, 2023, they unlawfully and purposefully got credits from the faulty slot machine.

On the other side of the windfall argument, the three punters claim that ‘during or about January 2023 in Cape Town they concluded a “tacit agreement” with SunWest’, of which the terms of the tacit agreement, among others, include the following:

• They would participate in gambling activities at SunWest’s premises and in doing so would make use of MVG cards and/or day visitor cards and would deposit monies into the loyalty card or alternatively make use of accumulated credits available on the loyalty cards;
• They were entitled to withdraw any accumulated credits from the loyalty cards at their exclusive discretion and on demand; and
• SunWest would be liable to pay them any accumulated credits they sought to withdraw at their exclusive discretion and on demand.

SunWest on the other hand, claims an exception in its interlocutory application on the grounds of the failure by the punters to allege:

• The date the tacit agreement was concluded;
• The place where the tacit agreement was concluded;
• The identity of SunWest’s authorised representative; and
• The conduct upon which they intend to rely to establish the tacit agreement, which SunWest claims is necessary to show that the parties intended to, and did, contract on the terms alleged by the punters.

SunWest said by failing to do so, the allegations by the punters are vague and embarrassing, and it would be prejudiced if required to plead to them.

Judge Andrews stated that the objective of an exception is to filter out items without legal merit, and that a court must assess if the pleading lacks particularity to the point of being unclear.

Her point of view was that the vagueness was directly related to the punters’ cause of action, which required particularity in terms of the date of the tacit agreement, the specific location where the tacit agreement was entered into, and the specific person with whom the tacit agreement was entered into.

Judge Andrews said the court was therefore obliged to undertake “an analysis of the embarrassment”. She said the vagueness of the punter’s counterclaim will cause potential prejudice to SunWest because the punter’s counterclaim “is manifestly devoid of facts that show unequivocal conduct”.

Andrews eventually said that SunWest has succeeded in proving ‘vagueness, embarrassment and prejudice’ – and upheld SunWest’s exception with costs.

The three remaining lucky strikers will have 20 days from the granting of her order to amend their counterclaim.

We’re sure the punters will throw every argument their lawyer can come up with to keep some of their ‘glitch loot’, but as we all know, the house always wins.

[source:moneyweb]