The Glitch Giveth, and the Court Taketh Away: How 160 'Lucky' Gamblers Lost Their R13 Million Free Ride

Have you ever heard the addage "The house always wins" well i finally get to see that addage play out in a real life setting whereby the "the house" won essentially against the legal system. We look at the recent judgment of Hollywood Sportsbook KwaZulu-Natal (Pty) Ltd v Capitec Bank Limited and Others (19/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (10 September 2025) (Ex Tempore) whereby a betting company essentially got the court to order that the winnings of the customer of this betting company, return monies to the company. I know rights, the winning customers were some luckiest unluckiest people. Think about how do you stumble upon a game, that happens to have a glitch at the time you stumble upon it, win some bread from the glitch then boom get sent a court order saying that that the law has ordered you to return that money back. Let get to it. We will start with the legal issues first, IFLAC right.

1.LEGAL ISSUE: YOU NOT ENTITLED TO MY MONEY:

There are essentially three-four legal principles that are applicable to this matter and they are as follows:

• Is one entitled to winnings from an "Invalid bet/wager"

• Is one bound by the contractual terms and conditions which details that winnings from a sports betting company may be claimed back by the company if the bet were "invalid"

• Procedural fairness

• Whether does it constitute fraud to exploit a vulnerability for personal gain.

These are the issues the court grappled with in reaching their judgment of whether the "winnings, the spoils" are required to be returned to Hollywood sportsbet( not a paid promotion- actually not a promotion at all) by the victors- i wrote that line with the movie hunger games popping up in my mind. Before we delve into how the court wrestled these issued, let take a trip to the background facts of this matter. How the heck did this end up in a court of law.

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: EHHHHH, TO COURT NOGAL:

How does gambling company take the fortune of its customers to court. Well thats through brilliant Attorneying right there. Litigation strategy at its finest. Heres how it began:

You have Hollywood Sportsbook KZN(shortened) which a sports betting and online casino service provider company where fathers, mothers and even babies spend their money playing the odds. One day Hollywood sat down and brainstormed how do we take peoples money, boom!!!!, lets offer a game called Betgames instant lucky 7 wherein betters places wagers on how much their seletected numbers will be drawn by the system. If they guess right, they won, if they guessed wrong they lost. But Hollywood messed up, due dilligence was properly not properly done anda glitch occured in the game wherein players could place bet, and if they lost they didnt lose money and if they won, they won money. The glitch took away the gamble from gambling.

Ofcourse, upon discovering this fortunate event, respondent quickly took the blessing and put themselves in positions where they would win, and they sure won. 13 metre was the total amount won by 160 respondent. One living human being with a pulse and all that bagged roughly R400K in winning with just a R900 bet. Am pretty sure in that instant, the dude thought himself "i serve a living god" , how else could one explain such luck. But remember "The house always wins" unless ofcourse you in a Oceans 11 movie. I digress. The company noticed how lives where being changed by their platform and quickly investigated why are people getting blessings through their platform. Thats when they discovered they glitch and quickly such that down, removed the game and got to work. They called everyone who ate the fruits from this glitch and demanded the money everyone won. Like any sane person would, the winners said " voestek, this is my money, i won it fair and square, take me court if you want it back". That indeed what Hollywood sportsbook did, they dudes to court, but in secrete because if they straight up took dudes to court, then dudes would evade, chow the money and there would be nothing to get back.

This is how they took dudes to court in secrete.

3. LEGAL PRINCIPLES: THE LEGAL ARSENAL USED- A MASTERCLASS IN LAWYERING

How do you tell a presiding judicial officer that this is what you want from the other people but dont let those people know that this is what you want from them and that the judicial officer must give you that thing without telling the people you want the thing from? This is where the Ex Parte Application comes in.

The applicant attorney bought a ex part application asking the court to grant an interim interdict wherein the winners of the money through the glitch are stopped from enjoying the spoils by having their accounts frozen. The court heard this request and said bet, but you gotta show me that the four tenents of getting an interdict apply to your situation (The applicants L). Anyone in the legal field knows that this aint no legal feat, convincing a judge that stopping someone from something is more important than taking your L is not a walk in the park, but the applicant laid it down perfect in this way.

• The first thing that needs to be shown in getting an interdict is that the applicant must show there is a prima facie right: Applicant essentially convinced the court that their right to the lost bread due to their own fault is the right that is the subject of the interdict.

• Second thing that needs to be shown is that the right is subject to harm or imminent harm. They basically illustrated this point by basically telling the court that the money that we lost will never be recovered if the winners are not stopped from eating that money.

• Thirdly thing that must be shown is that the balance of convenience favours the applicant meaning that granting the interdict prevents a way bigger harm to the applicant than the harm that the respondent would suffer if they are stopped from chowing the money. Somehow they were able to convice the court that the massive loss that they would suffier, 13 million loss, is greater than putting a pause on dudes accessing their bank accounts and buy grocery. Something does not sit right with me on that, but hey "thats the law".

• Lastly it has be shown to the court that there isnt any other remedy that stop their right from being harmed besides the interdict. They dealt with requirement by explaining that normal process or serving notice and all that kumbaya stuff will give the winners the chance to eat the winner they won and that cannot happen because they want their money, that they lost, back.

And thats how they got the Interim interdict, essentially stopping the winners from accessing that money in the interim until its decided finally whether the applicant is entitled to get that money or whether they should take their L.

This brings to where we are now, writing about the judgment where the court determines whether Hollywood sportsbook must get their money back or whether they must just accept their L. In determing this the court had to deal with the stipulated legal issued mentioned in number 1 above.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO ANSWERING THE LEGAL ISSUES:

1. On whether the the bets where invalid. The court took the common law principle/definition of what a valid bet to decide this issue. According to the common law, a valid bet is one where there exits a:

   - A Consideration- money being placed as a bet

   - There is risk involved- meaing there is risk that you may lose if you get it wrong. So essentially its a valid bet if the outcome of the event is uncertain.

   - A Prize- basically you get it right there is a price.

   Remember the winners won because of a glitch. There outcome of loss was never a possibility and they didnt need to put money up as a consideration because if they lost, they suffered that loss. All they got was the prize. And due to that the court found that their bet were indeed invalid. Which brings us to the next sub question which the court to answer which is whether are winners entitled to the fruits of an invalid bet. The court answered this in the negative.

2. The second issue is one based on principle of contract law- are players bound by the terms and conditions when using the platform. This was straight forward, the respondents use of the platform was the express consent to the terms and conditions. Therefore they would be bound by any clause which stipulates that victory obtained against the house which is found to be suspect can be taken back by the court. Read your T & C's you Betway merchants( not a paid promotion- not a promotion at all). Court found that indeed there is a provision in the terms that give the applicant the entitlement to get their back.

3. The question of whether exploiting a vulnerability constitute as Fraud. I had a situation where i was at a police a station and i had to explain the definition of what fraud is. Just a piece of advise, never tell police that they dont know their job, it makes things worse. So Fraud is the misrepresentation by X to Y in order to elicit Y to doing something so that X can obtain an advantage or benefit. In this case the respondent were just lucky. No deception, no misrepresentation, no black hat hacking, just right place at the right time. The fraud argument could not stick. The applicants where taking it far with this one. Laying that on the respondents door steps has the criminal legal system stepping. And that not good.

4. Lastly, Procedural Fairnes- Now the court found that the court that granted the interim interdict was a tad bit extreme is interdicting dudes from accessing their bank without the respondents telling their side of the story. The court found that to have violated the audi alteram partem principle- if you know you know- and if you dont, well this is legal jargon for let a brother or sister tell their side of the story, dont just judge people. This finding by the court had no bearing on the outcome of the judgment, it was just a criticism to the court that granted the interdict of having bank account frozen because dudes took a L.

   
   

CONCLUSION:

The court concluded by ordering the respondents to pay back the money. The question then becomes what happens if the respondent ate that money within that week? Would it constitute contempt of court if you cannot pay back the money that you basically picked up on the ground? Food for thought.

Check your Terms and Conditions man.

DISCLAIMER

This does not constitute as legal advise nor legal authority for how to go about obtaining an interdict or having other peoples bank account frozen because they took money that you dropped. This is merely a opinion based on my interest in the topic.