SunWest International, owner and operator of GrandWest Casino and Entertainment World in Cape Town, is involved in a dispute with three punters over the payment of credits totalling more than R6.24m from a malfunctioning slot machine at the casino (a settlement agreement has been reached with a fourth punter).

Moneyweb says the three punters – Maganathan Padayachee, Sharnetha Harilall and Sherilee Padayachee – allegedly unlawfully withdrew a total of R2.59m of these credits in their Sun MVG (Most Valued Guest) loyalty programme cards from an automated cash machine (ACM) at the GrandWest Casino as well as the Sibaya Casino & Entertainment Kingdom in Durban.

This emerged in a judgment handed down in the Western Cape High Court this week to an exception application by SunWest to a counterclaim by the four punters. 

Acting Judge Pearl Andrews said the matter has become settled between SunWest, a subsidiary of Sun International, and a fourth punter, Nazley Padayachee, with this settlement agreement made an order of court on 1 August.

SunWest said the three punters are existing Sun International patrons and members of the MVG loyalty programme to which membership terms and conditions apply.

It said these terms and conditions include that members accept that it is possible for errors or system malfunctions to occur. 

SunWest said in such instances, Sun International reserves the right to adjust or revoke discounts applied, loyalty points, benefits or tier credits received by members.

It 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.

SunWest alleges that Maganathan Padayachee recognised on 26 January 2023, when playing a specific slot machine, that this machine had malfunctioned.

The credits that were transferred to this machine remained on Maganathan Padayachee’s MVG card, thereby increasing the number of credits on his card.

SunWest further claimed that after recognising that this machine was malfunctioning, Maganathan Padayachee – through the allegedly intentional and fraudulent use of his MVG card – unlawfully received credits from this machine totalling R1 075 772.90.

It is further alleged that Maganathan Padayachee returned to GrandWest on 27 January 2023, and after re-establishing that this machine was still malfunctioning, allegedly unlawfully received credits from this machine totalling R2 484 634.97 through the allegedly intentional and fraudulent use of his MVG card and day visitor card. 

Moneyweb notes that SunWest alleged that Maganathan Padayachee on 27 January 2023 withdrew R10 000 in cash from the ACM at GrandWest and requested that R565 197.88 be transferred from GrandWest to Sibaya, where he withdrew R12 000 in cash from the ACM.

Maganathan Padayachee further allegedly requested that funds totalling R3 382 214 be transferred by GrandWest to Sibaya for withdrawal by himself and Sharnetha Harilall.

SunWest claimed the same or similar modus operandi was implored by Harilall and Sherilee Padayachee on 27 January 2023 and 28 January 2023, and over the course of 26 to 29 January 2023 they allegedly unlawfully and intentionally received credits from the malfunctioning slot machine.

In a counterclaim, the three punters claimed that during or about January 2023 in Cape Town they concluded a 'tacit agreement' with SunWest, but SunWest claimed 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, notes Moneyweb.

Andrews said the purpose of an exception is to weed out matters without legal merit, and a court is obliged to consider whether the pleading lacks particularity to an extent amounting to vagueness. 

Her view was that the vagueness relates directly to the punters’ cause of action, which requires particularity insofar as it relates to the date when the tacit agreement was entered into, the specific place where the tacit agreement was entered into, and the specific person with whom the tacit agreement has been entered into.

Andrews said the vagueness of the counterclaim will indeed cause potential prejudice to SunWest because the punters’ counterclaim 'is manifestly devoid of facts that show unequivocal conduct'.

Andrews said she is consequently not persuaded the punters have furnished sufficient facts to sustain their counterclaim relating to the terms of the tacit agreement.

She said she is therefore satisfied that SunWest has succeeded in proving vagueness, embarrassment and prejudice – and upheld SunWest’s exception with costs.

Full Moneyweb report

Judgment