Mattson v Yiannakis

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Colman J
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1976
• Citation: 1976 (4) SA 154 (W)
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Colman, J.:

This is the return day of a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause why, firstly, a named branch of a bank should not be interdicted, pending the determination of certain proceedings, from paying over to the applicant moneys standing to his credit in an account at that branch. Secondly, A why the respondent should not be ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of R4 454,60 with costs.

The prayer for an interdict was abandoned at the outset of the hearing before me, and during that hearing the money claim was reduced by R27, so that the amount claimed is now R4 427,60. The applicant presses for the award of that sum to her, with costs, but the respondent resists the claim.

The amount claimed is for one-half of the profit resulting from B an investment (so styled) in a jackpot permutation under the control of the Totalisator Agency Board for the Transvaal.

It will, I think, be convenient, before I go any further, if I try to explain the nature of such a transaction, as conveyed to me by counsel. It is a transaction, sanctioned by law, in which C the so-called investor attempts to nominate correctly the winners of each of four horse races to be run on a particular day. If he does so he qualifies for a money prize, reward or dividend, the amount of which, I presume, will depend upon the number of persons who have made predictions and on the number of those whose predictions have turned out to be correct. The Totalisator Agency Board provides a printed form to be filled D in by the investor or competitor and handed in by him together with the appropriate investment or stake. On that form there is a column relating to each of the four horse races which constitute the so-called 'legs' of the jackpot. In each column there are twenty numbered squares, the numbers representing the race card numbers of the horses competing in the race E concerned. A competitor indicates his predictions for the four races by making crosses in the appropriate squares. If, for example, he expects horse No. 3 to win the race constituting the first leg of the jackpot, he will put a cross in square No. 3 in the first column. If he expects horse No. 7 to win the second leg, he will similarly mark square No. 7 in the second column, and so on. A competitor may confine himself to one prediction in respect of each of the four races, but he need F not so confine himself. He can increase his chances of winning by nominating more than one horse in respect of any one or more of the legs. He may thus make as many crosses as he pleases in each of the four columns. However, the more crosses he makes the greater the stake which he is required to pay in with his entry and, for reasons which can be understood, the increase is G not a matter of simple proportion. The stake to be paid in is computed by taking the number of predictions made for the first leg, multiplying it by the number of predictions made for the second leg, multiplying that product by the number of predictions made for the third leg, and multiplying that result, in turn, by the number of predictions made for the H fourth leg. The resulting figures, divided by two, will be the stake required in rands. Thus, if one makes three predictions for each race, the stake will be, in rands, 3 X 3 X 3 X 3 over 2, or, as I calculate it, R40,50. If there are two extra predictions for one of the races, then the sum payable in rands will be 3 X 3 X 3 X 5 over 2, which on my calculation comes to R67,50.

The applicant is the superintendent of a building or block of buildings in Florida North, and the respondent is, or was at the material time, the tenant of a shop in that building or complex. Neither of them appears to have been

Colman J

professionally concerned in horse racing or gambling, but it is common cause that they were both interested in these matters and that, at times, they co-operated therein by placing joint bets, or making joint jackpot investments, which, as I see the matter, is a transaction of a similar nature.

The dispute arises out of a transaction on Wednesday, 5 A November 1975. It is common cause that on the morning of that day the applicant and the respondent met and agreed that they would jointly make an investment in the jackpot for that afternoon's racing. They were to pay the stake in equal shares and to divide the proceeds, if there were any, equally. The respondent was...