The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dealt a significant blow to SA Sportsbook (Pty) Ltd, trading as YesPlay, by dismissing its urgent application for the provisional sequestration of the joint estate of couple KP and JP.
This ruling, delivered by Justice LR Adams on 2 May 2025, unsettles the online betting operator's claims of fraudulent conduct involving debts amounting to more than R6 million. YesPlay’s had contended that the couple exploited a system flaw within its platform, illegally benefiting from improperly awarded winnings amounting to R6,075,903.42.
The application for provisional sequestration argued that such actions constituted acts of insolvency under the Insolvency Act of 1936. However, the respondents denied these allegations, maintaining that their activities on the platform were legitimate and within standard gambling practices.
YesPlay applied, on an urgent basis, for the provisional sequestration of the joint estate of the KP and JP, who are married to each other in community of property. YesPlay is an online betting operator, duly registered with and licensed by the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board.
The YesPlay platform offers a variety of means in terms of which its customers may place bets online. YesPlay customers can, by way of example, choose to place bets between inter alia casino games, sports betting or slots. KP registered and created an account online with YesPlay on or about 24 April 2022 and JP on 3 June 2024.
YesPlay avers that the respondents are indebted to it in the amount of no less than R6 075 903.42, being the sum of amounts they received because of a fraudulent exploitation of a system fault on its online betting platform.
Following the discovery of their alleged fraudulent conduct, so it is contended by the applicants, the couple, through their attorneys of record, made various full and final settlement offers to be released from this debt. This constitutes an act of insolvency, so the contention continues, as contemplated in section 8(e) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936.
Moreover, so the applicant alleges, the couple admitted their inability to repay this debt, which is also an act of insolvency, as contemplated in section 8(g) of the Act. And they have disposed of their property which has or would have the effect of prejudicing their creditors, or of preferring one creditor above another, which action also constitutes an act of insolvency as contemplated in section 8(c) of the Act.
The core issue in the application was whether the respondents were undeniably indebted to YesPlay, a claim the court found was reasonably disputed on bona fide grounds. The respondents effectively argued that they had never engaged in fraudulent or unlawful behavior, asserting that they were merely exercising their gambling rights.
Procedural and evidentiary concerns
Justice Adams emphasised that the facts of the case were not as clear-cut as YesPlay suggested. The court stressed the importance of distinguishing between factual disputes over liability and the requirements for provisional sequestration.
“The application ought to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency,” the judge ruled, citing the applicant’s self-created urgency and failure to launch the application in a timely manner. In a procedural twist, the court also addressed the respondents’ request to strike out portions of YesPlay’s founding affidavit, specifically statements deemed privileged under the ‘without prejudice’ rule. This request was granted, further weakening YesPlay’s position as the court ruled that these communications did not constitute an admission of liability.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
