The judgment is a reportable decision of the Western Cape Division of the High Court <\/strong>(Case No. A260\/2025), heard on June 5 2026 and delivered on June 10 2026 by Judge M Francis, with Acting Judges ZL Mapoma and M Louw concurring. It was also published on the Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII), a publicly accessible database of South African court judgments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The appeal stems from a November 2024 ruling by Acting Judge Pearl Andrews on a Rule 23 exception, which dealt with whether the gamblers\u2019 counterclaim<\/strong> was properly pleaded in law. The gamblers had argued that there was an<\/span>\u00a0implied agreement<\/strong> allowing them to withdraw credits from the slot machine as cash, but the court found the claim was not properly pleaded in law. The court at that stage did not decide the merits of the R6.2m dispute itself, which\u00a0remains\u00a0pending in separate proceedings.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the centre of the case is slot machine 72504 <\/strong>at GrandWest Casino. According to Sunwest\u2019s version of events, three gamblers – Maganathan Padayachee, Sharnetha Harilal and Sherilee Padayachee – discovered between January 26 and 29 2023 that the machine was malfunctioning. They allegedly exploited the fault to accumulate credits<\/strong> of approximately R6.2m (US$378,000), withdrew about R2.59m (US$158,000), and transferred the remaining balance to an account at Sibaya Casino for later withdrawal. <\/p>\n\n\n Sunwest argued the gamblers believed a fault allowed them to generate and withdraw unusually large credits<\/strong>, while the operator contends the funds were not lawfully due and must be repaid. The gamblers, however, claimed there was an agreement allowing them to withdraw credits on demand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court rejected this defence, finding that the appellants failed to identify the Sunwest representative involved and did not plead the conduct relied upon to infer such an agreement. <\/p>\n\n\n The court stressed that a tacit agreement must be inferred from \u201cclear and unequivocal conduct\u201d, requiring proper pleading of both the relevant actors and the underlying actions said to give rise to consensus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court further held that the counterclaim was \u201cvague and embarrassing<\/strong>\u201d, meaning it was not clearly set out in a way that allowed the court or Sunwest to properly respond to it. This confirmed that Sunwest had correctly proceeded under Rule 23<\/strong>, which is used when a pleading is legally defective, rather than Rule 30, which applies to more technical or procedural errors in court documents. The judge found that the appellants had failed to properly set out the basis of their claim, including the relevant conduct and parties involved, making it difficult for the case to be answered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Judge M Francis, with Acting Judges ZL Mapoma and M Louw concurring, dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier ruling in Sunwest\u2019s favour. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2026\/06\/GRAND2-JC2-900x459.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2026\/06\/GRANDWEST1-JC-900x374.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/06\/photo-1705056508589-a87485825dc1-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n