Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another (182/2024; 215/2024) [2025] ZASCA 158 (21 October 2025)

Case Note

Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another; Gauteng Gambling Board v Casino Association of South Africa and Others
2025 (unreported) case numbers 182/2024 & 215/2024 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
Neutral citation: Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another; Gauteng Gambling Board v Casino Association of South Africa and Others [2025] ZASCA 158 (21 October 2025)

Reportability

This judgment is designated reportable because it delivers a definitive interpretation of section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995, namely whether the phrase “sporting event” encompasses casino games such as roulette. The decision clarifies the relationship between provincial gambling statutes and the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 within the constitutional framework of concurrent national-provincial legislative competence. Further, the judgment restates the constitutional principles governing conflicts between national and provincial legislation under section 146 of the Constitution, thereby offering guidance well beyond the gambling sector. Finally, the ruling settles an important practical question for provincial gambling regulators and licensees: bookmakers operating under a bookmaker’s licence in Gauteng may not accept fixed-odds bets on roulette unless they also hold a casino licence.

Cases Cited

• Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others 2009 (1) SA 600 (CC); 2009 (4) BCLR 370 (CC)
• No other decided cases were expressly cited in the judgment.

Legislation Cited

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – especially section 146 and Schedule 4
• Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995 – sections 1, 3, 4, 30, 32, 39, 55, 76, 87
• Gauteng Gambling Regulations, 1997 – notably Regulation 266 and Rule 14.080
• National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 – sections 4, 7, 30
• KwaZulu-Natal Regulation of Racing and Betting Ordinance 28 of 1957 (referred to in Weare)

Rules of Court Cited

The judgment did not turn on the Uniform Rules of Court, but reference was made to internal Gauteng Gambling Board rules – in particular Rule 14.080 governing approval of software installations – relevant to legality of the impugned approvals.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was required to determine whether Gauteng-licensed bookmakers could lawfully offer fixed-odds bets on roulette streamed from an overseas casino. The Gauteng Gambling Board had approved the use of the Aardvark betting system for this purpose, but the Casino Association of South Africa (CASA) contended that roulette is a “casino game” and not a “sporting event”, making the Board’s approvals ultra vires and bookmaker conduct unlawful. The court dismissed the Board’s main appeal, upheld CASA’s cross-appeal, and declared that it is unlawful in Gauteng for bookmakers, absent a casino licence, to offer fixed-odds bets on casino games such as roulette.

Key Issues

First, the court considered whether a conflict exists between section 4 of the National Gambling Act, which permits bets on “any contingency”, and section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act, which restricts bookmakers to contingencies consisting of “sporting events”. Second, it examined the proper interpretation of “sporting event” in the provincial Act: does the word “game” in the statutory definition extend to casino games like roulette? Third, the court evaluated whether CASA was entitled to maintain two parallel review applications challenging both the Board’s non-action on CASA’s complaint and the subsequent approvals granted to the bookmaker entities.

Held

The SCA, per Dambuza JA (Mothle and Koen JJA concurring), held that there is no constitutional or statutory conflict between the national and provincial statutes; the provincial restriction is a legitimate policy choice within Gauteng’s legislative competence. The term “sporting event” cannot reasonably be interpreted to include roulette, which is expressly defined as a “casino game” under the Gauteng Act. Accordingly, bookmakers licensed under chapter 9 of the Act may not offer bets on roulette without obtaining a casino licence. CASA was justified in pursuing both review applications, and the orders of the High Court were amended to grant it comprehensive declaratory and review relief with costs.

THE FACTS

Portapa (Pty) Ltd, trading as Supabets, and its related entity Supaworld Gauteng (Pty) Ltd operated as licensed bookmakers in Gauteng. In 2017 they partnered with Intelligent Gaming (Pty) Ltd, owner of the Aardvark software, to stream live roulette draws from a Lithuanian casino into Gauteng betting shops. Fixed-odds bets were taken on the outcome of each spin, notwithstanding that roulette is traditionally confined to casinos.

The Gauteng Gambling Board initially approved installation of the Aardvark system for sporting and lottery contingencies but expressly required further approvals for additional bet types. Supabets nevertheless began to offer roulette-based bets. CASA – whose members are Gauteng casino licence holders – complained, asserting the conduct was unlawful. For months the Board neither interdicted Supabets nor resolved the complaint.

In March 2018 CASA launched its first review application seeking declaratory and interdictory relief. Three days later the Board issued a letter concluding Supabets’ conduct was not unlawful; instead it was only a technical infringement for introducing a new contingency without approval. CASA amended its papers to review that decision.

When the Board later granted formal approvals (June–July 2018) authorising the bookmakers to offer roulette bets, CASA initiated a second review aimed specifically at setting aside those approvals. The High Court dismissed the first review but set aside the approvals. Both the Board/bookmakers and CASA appealed to the SCA.

THE ISSUES

The central legal question was whether “sporting event” in section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act can be stretched to accommodate roulette, thereby permitting bookmakers to trade on that contingency. Ancillary issues were:

Whether section 4 of the National Gambling Act overrides provincial restrictions, giving bookmakers a nationwide entitlement to bet on “any contingency”.

Whether, assuming no override, the Board’s approvals and its earlier exoneration of Supabets were ultra vires, irrational or procedurally unfair.

Whether CASA should have abandoned its first review once the second review was launched, thus rendering the High Court’s dismissal correct.

ANALYSIS

The court commenced by locating gambling within the Constitution’s concurrent legislative domain. By invoking section 146 it explained that national legislation prevails over provincial legislation only when one of the conditions in subsections (2) or (3) is met. In the gambling sphere, the National Gambling Act lays down broad normative frameworks, while each province may legitimately tailor gambling modes to local socio-economic conditions. The court agreed with the High Court that no conflict arises because section 4 of the National Act is descriptive, not directive; it does not compel provinces to license bookmakers for “any contingency”.

Turning to statutory interpretation, the court emphasised textual fidelity. The definition of “sporting event” in the Gauteng Act refers to a “ball-game, race … or other athletic or sporting contest, competition or game”. The adjectives athletic or sporting qualify each noun that follows. Roulette, being listed in the Act itself as a “casino game”, is non-athletic, non-sporting, and ordinarily not “attended by the public”. A purposive reading, mindful of the Act’s compartmentalised licencing scheme, reinforces that conclusion.

The appellants’ attempt to invoke section 22 of the Constitution (freedom of trade, occupation and profession) was found misplaced. Provincial limitations on gambling activities represent a reasonable and rational policy choice designed to protect the public and ensure regulatory oversight. Reference to Weare lent constitutional support to differentiated provincial gambling regimes.

Finally, the court dealt with procedural matters. CASA’s first review addressed the Board’s failure to curb illegal betting before any formal approvals existed, whereas the second review challenged the legality of those approvals. The issues were not entirely duplicative and CASA was therefore entitled to maintain both.

REMEDY

The SCA dismissed the Gauteng Gambling Board’s and bookmakers’ appeal with costs (including two counsel). It upheld CASA’s cross-appeal, substituting the High Court’s order by:

declaring that it is unlawful under the Gauteng Gambling Act for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on roulette or any casino game;

declaring Supabets was not permitted to offer such bets and that its conduct contravened section 76(2) of the Act;

reviewing and setting aside the Board’s letter of 2 March 2018 which had found Supabets’ conduct lawful; and

ordering the Board and Supabets jointly and severally to pay the costs of the application, again including the costs of two counsel.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The decision affirms that provincial gambling legislation may legitimately restrict bookmakers to a narrower class of contingencies than those contemplated in national legislation. Interpretation of provincial statutes must respect their internal structure and stated purposes and cannot be expanded by reference to general language in national frameworks.

Where national and provincial legislation co-exist in a concurrent field, the test for conflict under section 146 of the Constitution is stringent; mere difference is insufficient. Provincial provisions prevail unless uniformity is constitutionally required or the national statute expressly sets mandatory norms and standards.

The definition of “sporting event” under the Gauteng Gambling Act is confined to athletic or sporting contests, competitions or games and does not extend to traditional casino games. Accordingly, bookmakers operating under a bookmaker’s licence may not, in Gauteng, offer fixed-odds bets on roulette unless they separately obtain a casino licence in terms of chapter 4 of the Act.

Regulatory approvals granted contrary to statutory limits are ultra vires and fall to be reviewed and set aside. A regulator’s failure to act or incorrect exoneration of unlawful conduct is equally susceptible to review under the principle of legality.

Lastly, parties seeking to vindicate legality may pursue multiple review avenues where each targets distinct administrative acts or omissions, provided lis alibi pendens is not established.