Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another, and The Gauteng Gambling Board v Casino Association of South Africa and Others

The Gauteng Gambling Board (the Board) approved betting software (Aardvark) that enabled bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on various contingencies. In April 2017, the Board approved livestream feeds of roulette draw contingencies to existing bookmaker licence holders. Supabets (Portapa (Pty) Ltd) and related entities (Supaworld and Intelligent Gaming) began offering fixed-odds bets on livestreamed roulette games without obtaining full approval for all contingencies and bet types. The Casino Association of South Africa (CASA), representing casino licence holders, complained to the Board, asserting that a casino licence was required to offer bets on roulette. In March 2018, the Board decided that Supabets had not acted unlawfully but had merely introduced a new contingency without prior approval. CASA then launched two applications in the Gauteng High Court: a first review of the Board's March 2018 decision, and a second review of the Board's approval decisions of June/July 2017 and June/July 2018. The High Court dismissed the first review but granted the second, setting aside the Board's approvals. The Board and Supabets entities appealed; CASA cross-appealed the dismissal of the first review.

• Whether s 4 of the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 conflicts with s 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995 regarding the scope of contingencies on which bookmakers may accept fixed-odds bets.
• Whether the term 'sporting event' in s 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act should be interpreted broadly (including constitutionally) to encompass casino games such as roulette.
• Whether roulette falls within the statutory definition of 'sporting event' under the Gauteng Gambling Act.
• Whether CASA was required to abandon its first review application once it launched the second review application challenging subsequent approval decisions.

The appeals in case numbers 182/2024 and 215/2024 were dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed. The cross-appeals arising from high court case number 9547/2018 were upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with the following: (1) a declaration that it is unlawful under the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995 for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on the outcome of a casino game, including roulette; (2) a declaration that Supabets is not permitted to offer fixed-odds bets on roulette and that its conduct is unlawful and contravenes s 76(2) of the Gauteng Gambling Act; (3) the Board's decision in its letter dated 2 March 2018 was reviewed and set aside insofar as it found Supabets did not act contrary to ss 39 and 76 of the Gauteng Gambling Act; and (4) the Board and Supabets were directed to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.

1. Section 4 of the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 and s 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995 are not in conflict; the former describes the mechanics of placing or accepting bets on any contingency for which a bookmaker is licensed, while the latter prescribes the specific contingencies on which provincial bookmakers may accept fixed-odds bets, and the statutes must be read harmoniously. 2. Under the constitutional scheme of concurrent legislative competence, provincial gambling legislation prevails over national legislation where the national legislation does not satisfy the override conditions in s 146(2) or (3) of the Constitution. 3. 'Sporting event' in s 55 of the Gauteng Act is defined as a ball-game, race, or other athletic or sporting contest, competition or game (including a beauty contest) usually attended by the public; roulette, being expressly defined as a casino game, does not fall within this meaning and cannot be the subject of lawful fixed-odds betting by bookmakers. 4. A bookmaker that offers fixed-odds bets on roulette without a casino licence acts unlawfully under ss 39 and 76 of the Gauteng Gambling Act. 5. A second review application directed at approval decisions does not subsume a first review directed at the lawfulness of prior conduct and a regulator's decision dismissing a complaint, where separate issues remain live.

The court observed that provinces have the prerogative to select the means to achieve their regulatory objectives within the bounds of legitimate legislative choice, and that differences between provincial gambling regimes do not in themselves establish constitutional invalidity or irrationality. The court further noted that while nothing prevents bookmakers from using technology or electronic means to provide betting facilities, this must remain within their statutorily defined scope of contingency, and the fact that other provinces may permit broader betting activities is not a proper basis for interpreting Gauteng's legislation expansively. The court also remarked that the possession of a foreign casino licence by an overseas entity from which roulette games are streamed is irrelevant to the lawfulness of gambling activities conducted within Gauteng.

The judgment affirms the concurrent legislative competence of provinces to regulate gambling and validates provincial policy choices that impose stricter limits on bookmaker contingencies than the national framework. It clarifies that 'sporting event' in the Gauteng Gambling Act does not encompass casino games such as roulette, thereby preserving the structural integrity of distinct gambling licences and preventing bookmakers from circumventing casino licensing requirements. It also establishes that review proceedings challenging the underlying unlawful conduct of a licensee and a regulator's decision dismissing a complaint are not automatically subsumed by later proceedings challenging subsequent approval decisions, where distinct rights and issues remain alive.