by Sarah Robinson / Associate / Mooney Ford Attorneys
Introduction
Recent media reports following the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa [2025] ZASCA 158 have created confusion about the future of online gambling in South Africa. Headlines suggesting that “online gambling is bad” or that the SCA has outlawed online betting fundamentally misrepresent what the Court actually decided.
This article breaks down what the SCA actually said and what it means for the gambling industry in Gauteng and beyond.
What the Case Was Actually About
This case was not about banning online gambling or declaring that digital betting platforms are unlawful. Instead, it dealt with a very specific question: Can bookmakers in Gauteng offer fixed-odds bets on roulette games without holding a casino licence?
The answer from the SCA was a clear “no”, but this answer is based on Gauteng’s specific provincial gambling legislation, not a blanket prohibition on online gambling.
The Key Facts
The Gauteng Gambling Board approved the use of Aardvark betting software on 9 January 2017. This software is owned by Intelligent Gaming (Pty) Ltd and enables bookmakers to offer and accept wagers on the outcome of sports and lottery draw events.
On 11 April 2017, the Board approved Intelligent Gaming’s request to offer livestream feeds of roulette draw contingencies to existing holders of bookmaker licences in Gauteng through the Aardvark software.
Supabets, a licensed bookmaker, applied to install the Aardvark software at its betting shops in Gauteng on 14 June 2017. The Board gave conditional approval on 20 June 2017. One of the conditions was that the approval could only be implemented once consent to all the contingencies and bet types was secured.
Despite not having obtained the required consent for all contingencies and bet types, on 23 June 2017 Supabets began to offer fixed-odds bets on streamed, live roulette contingencies.
The Casino Association of South Africa (CASA) lodged a complaint with the Board, asserting that bookmakers who operate in Gauteng require a casino licence to offer bets on roulette games, because roulette is a casino game. The Board took almost ten months to respond to this complaint.
On 2 March 2018, the Board decided that Supabets had not acted unlawfully, but had merely “introduced a new contingency (betting on the outcome of roulette games) without the prior approval of the Board”. The Board found this conduct did not contravene the provisions of sections 39 and 76 of the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995.
CASA launched a review application in the Gauteng High Court to challenge this decision. The High Court upheld CASA’s application and found that the Board’s decision was wrong. Supabets and the Board then appealed to the SCA.
What the SCA Actually Decided
- There is No Conflict Between the National Gambling Act and the Gauteng Gambling Act
Supabets argued that section 4 of the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 authorises bookmakers to offer bets on “any contingency”, while section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act limits bookmakers to offering bets only on “sporting events”. They contended this created a conflict and that the National Gambling Act should prevail.
The SCA rejected this argument. The Court held that section 4 of the National Gambling Act merely describes how bets and wagers are made and accepted. The provision is not a “contingency prescription provision”. Section 4(b) provides that a bet or wager is made when a bookmaker accepts a stake of money or anything of value on a fixed-odds bet from a player on any contingency for which they are licensed.
The Court found that the broadly framed text in section 4 provides flexibility to cover any contingency that individual provincial legislative authorities may choose to provide. There is therefore no conflict between section 4(b) of the National Gambling Act and section 55 of the Gauteng Act.
- Provincial Gambling Legislation Prevails in This Instance
The SCA explained that casinos, racing, gambling and wagering are listed in Schedule 4 to the Constitution as matters of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence. The National Gambling Act establishes the framework for regulation and coordination of gambling activities.
The National Gambling Act establishes norms and standards which apply generally throughout the country. Provincial licensing authorities have exclusive jurisdiction within their individual provinces to investigate and consider applications for, and issue provincial licences.
The Court found that there is no evidence that, in the gambling industry, the National Gambling Act fulfils any of the conditions set out in section 146(2) or (3) of the Constitution. Provincial legislation therefore prevails.
The Court referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision in Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others [2008] ZACC 20, which held that provinces have the right to regulate their own gambling industries. The fact that there are differences between the legal regimes in provinces does not in itself constitute a breach of section 9(1) of the Constitution.
The policy choice exercised by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature in restricting the contingency on which bookmakers may accept or offer bets could only be validly challenged if it exceeded the bounds of legitimate legislative choice. The appellants made no such case.
- Roulette is Not a “Sporting Event” Under the Gauteng Gambling Act
Section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act provides that a bookmaker’s licence shall authorise the accepting of fixed-odds bets on sporting events. “Sporting event” is defined in section 1 of the Gauteng Act as “any ball-game, race (including a race involving vehicles or animals) or other athletic or sporting contest, competition or game, including a beauty contest, usually attended by the public”.
Supabets contended that roulette is a game and is therefore included in the definition of a sporting event. The SCA disagreed. The Court held that a sensible reading of “sporting event” is that it is either a ball-game, or a race (including a race involving vehicles or animals), or other athletic or sporting contest, athletic or sporting competition or athletic or sporting game, including a beauty contest, usually attended by the public.
The phrase “other athletic or sporting” describes the contest, competition or game. “Game” is not a stand-alone noun. It is qualified by the words “sporting or athletic”, such that the complete expression is an “athletic or sporting game”.
The High Court was correct in its conclusion that roulette is not a game as envisaged in the definition of “sporting activity” in the Gauteng Act. It is also relevant that roulette is not a game that is usually attended by the public.
- Roulette is a Casino Game
The Gauteng Gambling Act defines “casino game” in section 1 as “any game, irrespective of whether or not the result thereof is determined by chance or a measure of skill, played with playing cards, dice, a gaming machine or any other device used to determine win or loss in the outcome of a wager for money or other valuable consideration, and includes, without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, chemin de fer, baccarat, bingo, keno, twenty-one, poker and roulette, or any other game whose rules closely resemble that of the foregoing”.
Being a casino game, roulette must be played in casino premises. Section 1 of the Gauteng Act defines “casino” as “premises where casino games are played or available to be played for money or other valuable consideration gambled on the possibility of winning a prize”.
- The Gauteng Act Creates a Careful Licensing Scheme
The SCA emphasised that the Gauteng Act is a carefully constructed scheme for regulating gambling within the Gauteng Province. It is intended to limit the right to freedom of trade within the gambling industry.
Section 76 of the Gauteng Act stipulates events and contingencies on which gambling may take place. It provides that no person may gamble on the result of any event or contingency other than a casino game, a bingo game, the operating of a
gaming machine, or a sporting event. Section 76(2) provides that no person may gamble on the result of any event or contingency with any person other than the holder of a licence who is authorised by such licence to gamble on the event or contingency concerned.
Licences in relation to each of the contingencies set out in section 76(1) are regulated in different chapters of the Gauteng Act. Chapter 4 deals with casino licences, Chapter 9 regulates bookmaker licences. Section 39 in Chapter 9 prohibits the conduct of a casino without a casino licence.
The Court noted that the case advanced by the Board and Supabets sought to dismantle this deliberate construct in the Act and to allow bookmakers to ride on the coattails of licensees under all these chapters, without the required licences.
- The Location of the Roulette Games is Irrelevant
Supabets offered bets on roulette games streamed from Lithuania. They argued that the Lithuanian casino from which the roulette games are streamed may be in possession of a licence as required under the laws of that country.
The SCA held that this argument is irrelevant. For entities conducting gambling businesses in Gauteng, the requirement of a casino licence in order to offer roulette games means a Gauteng casino licence. The gambling occurs in Gauteng.
Without a Gauteng casino licence, the Supabets entities are conducting a gambling activity without the necessary licence, which is prohibited under section 7(a) of the National Gambling Act. That section prohibits the conduct of a gambling activity if the outcome of that activity depends directly or indirectly, partly or entirely, on a contingency related to an event or activity that is itself unlawful.
- CASA Was Entitled to Pursue Both Review Applications
The High Court dismissed CASA’s first review application, finding that once CASA issued the second review, it should have abandoned the first one. The SCA disagreed with this finding. The SCA held that although the underlying questions of law were the same in both applications, the second review did not subsume all the issues in the first review. The review of the Board’s decision on the lawfulness of Supabets’ conduct in offering the bets prior to the approvals and the general declarator remained live issues. The withdrawal of the first application would leave intact the Board’s decision that Supabets’ conduct in offering bets on the outcome of roulette prior to the Board’s approval was lawful. CASA was therefore entitled to proceed with both applications.
What This Does NOT Mean
It is crucial to understand what this judgment does not say:
- It does not ban online gambling. The judgment does not outlaw online or digital gambling platforms. The use of technology, livestreaming or electronic platforms is not the issue.
- It does not apply uniformly across South Africa. This judgment interprets Gauteng’s provincial gambling legislation. Other provinces have their own gambling legislation and related rules and regulations.
- It does not prevent technological innovation. The Court noted that nothing prevents bookmakers from using technology or electronic means to provide betting and wagering facilities within their defined scope of contingency.
What It Does Mean
- Bookmakers in Gauteng are limited to sporting events. Section 55 of the Gauteng Act limits bookmakers to accepting fixed-odds bets on sporting events as defined in that Act.
- Roulette is a casino game. Roulette is explicitly listed as a casino game in the Gauteng Act and must be played in licensed casino premises.
- Casino licences are required to offer casino games. Anyone offering casino games in Gauteng, including roulette, must hold a casino licence under the Gauteng Act.
- The location of the game does not matter. If the betting activity occurs in Gauteng, Gauteng law applies, regardless of where the game is physically located or streamed from.
- Provincial gambling laws are valid and enforceable. Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to determine and craft policy, and to regulate the issuing of licences in their provinces.
The Outcome
The SCA dismissed the appeals brought by Supabets and the Board. The Court upheld CASA’s cross-appeal against the dismissal of the first review application.
The final order declared that it is unlawful, in terms of the Gauteng Gambling Act, for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on the outcome of a casino game, including the game of roulette. Supabets is not permitted to offer fixed-odds bets on the game of roulette, and its conduct in doing so is unlawful and contravenes section 76(2) of the Gauteng Gambling Act.
Conclusion
The SCA’s judgment in Portapa v CASA is not an indictment of online gambling. It is an interpretation of Gauteng’s provincial gambling legislation that upholds the province’s right to regulate different forms of gambling through distinct licensing categories.
The judgment confirms that bookmakers cannot offer casino games without casino licences, regardless of the technology used or where the games are physically located. Provincial gambling laws remain valid and enforceable, and provinces have the constitutional right to make different policy choices about gambling regulation.
This judgment provides clarity about regulatory boundaries in Gauteng.
Disclaimer: Mooney Ford Attorneys does not endorse or promote gambling or online betting in any form. This article is provided solely for informational purposes to explain the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in Portapa v CASA and to clarify its legal implications for readers.
