The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled that bookmakers, including Supabets, Supaworld Gauteng and Intelligent Gaming, are prohibited from offering fixed-odds bets on the casino game of roulette.
The court found on Tuesday that such bets are unlawful under the Gauteng Gambling Act and constitute unlawful competition with licensed casinos.
The dispute centred on whether bookmakers, licensed under the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995, could legally offer bets on the outcome of live-streamed roulette games.
The legal challenge was brought by the Casino Association of South Africa (Casa), which argued that roulette is exclusively a casino game and that only holders of a casino licence are permitted to offer gambling on it.
The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of Section 55 of the Gauteng Act, which states that a bookmaker’s licence only authorises the acceptance of fixed-odds bets on “sporting events”.
The SCA firmly rejected arguments by Supabets, its associated companies, and the Gauteng Gambling Board that the term “sporting event” should be interpreted broadly to include roulette.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Nambitha Dambuza, the court concluded that “a sensible reading” of the definition of a sporting event – which includes “any ballgame, race… or other athletic or sporting contest, competition or game”– does not encompass roulette.
The court found instead that the word “game” in the definition is qualified by the adjectives “athletic or sporting”, and that roulette is neither.
“Roulette is not a game as envisaged in the definition of ‘sporting activity’ in the Gauteng Act,” the judgment stated.
“It is also relevant that roulette is not a game that is usually attended by the public.”
Supabets and its allies had also argued that the Gauteng Act’s restriction of bookmakers to sporting events conflicted with the National Gambling Act, which allows bookmakers to accept bets on “any contingency”.
The SCA dismissed this argument, finding no conflict between the two pieces of legislation. It stated that gambling is a concurrent matter of national and provincial legislative competence, and provincial legislation prevails in this context.
The National Gambling Act sets a national framework, but provinces have the right
to impose stricter regulations tailored to their unique circumstances.
The judgment highlighted that roulette is explicitly defined as a “casino game” in the Gauteng Act and must be played on licensed casino premises. Allowing bookmakers to offer bets on roulette streams, including those sourced from a casino in Lithuania, undermined the provincial regulatory framework.
“The board has no control over roulette streamed from Lithuania or anywhere else outside the province. This is at odds with the objectives of the Gauteng Act,” the court found.
As a result of the ruling, the SCA upheld Casa’s cross-appeal and set aside the order of the high court. It issued a declaratory order stating that it is unlawful for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on a casino game like roulette.
The court specifically declared that Supabets’ conduct in offering such bets was unlawful.
The SCA also reviewed and set aside a 2018 decision by the Gauteng Gambling Board that had initially found Supabets’ actions were not unlawful.
The ruling reinforces the compartmentalised licensing system of the Gauteng gambling industry and delivers a significant victory for licensed casinos, protecting them from what the court has now deemed unlawful competition from bookmakers operating outside their legal scope.
