Chairperson of the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board and Others v Goldrush Group Management (Pty) Ltd and Another

The Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board issued a Request for Proposals in 2004 to license route operators for limited payout gambling machines (LPMs), indicating it intended to appoint up to three operators with 1 000 LPMs each, but reserving the right to appoint fewer operators and proportionally allocate additional machines to those licensed. After a competitive process, only two operators, Vukani Gaming Western Cape (V-Slots) and Grand Gaming Western Cape (Grand Slots), were licensed and allocated 1 000 LPMs each, leaving 1 000 unallocated. In 2017, the Board decided to allocate the remaining 1 000 LPMs equally between the two existing licensees, in line with the RFP reservation. Goldrush Group Management (Pty) Ltd, which was not licensed in the Western Cape and had not participated in the original RFP process, sought to review and set aside this allocation, alleging that the Board was obliged to invite new applications before allocating the remaining machines.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Western Cape High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Goldrush’s review application with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment reinforces strict principles of standing in administrative review, confirming that speculative commercial interests do not constitute own-interest standing. It clarifies the limited scope of the ‘interests of justice’ exception from Giant Concerts and affirms that courts should not decide merits where standing is absent. Substantively, it confirms that provincial gambling boards may lawfully act in accordance with policy reservations contained in an RFP when allocating gambling machines, without re-advertising, provided the RFP itself is unchallenged.