This
is an application for an order compelling payment of the sum of $306,000= by
the respondent to the applicant together with costs of suit.
The
facts of the matter are that the applicant was the winner of the Star Lotto
Jackpot prize of $306,000= on the 14th of August 2013. The applicant
alleges that after ...
This
is an application for an order compelling payment of the sum of $306,000= by
the respondent to the applicant together with costs of suit.
The
facts of the matter are that the applicant was the winner of the Star Lotto
Jackpot prize of $306,000= on the 14th of August 2013. The applicant
alleges that after winning the Lotto and complying with the respondent's terms
and conditions, the respondent then insisted that the applicant comes up with a
“suitable” investment plan prior to it (Respondent) meeting its obligations in
paying the prize.
Apparently,
the applicant did try to lay out an investment plan which investment plan was
rejected by the respondent. The respondent's counsel concedes that the
investment plan is not part of the terms and conditions of the Lotto.
The
respondent, on the other hand, contends that the applicant did not comply with
the terms and conditions of the Lotto hence he is not entitled to the payment
of the prize….,.
On
the merits of the matter, the respondent contends that the applicant did not comply
with all the formalities of filling in the forms for claiming the prize money.
The
applicant contends that he was assisted by an employee of the respondent and
that he duly completed the forms where he was asked to complete and simply left
out that information that he was advised to leave out as per the respondent's
employee's instructions. Whilst there is a factual dispute here as to what
transpired during the filling in of the relevant forms, coming in handy are the
exchanges made through emails between the applicant and the respondent's
representatives. These are annexed as Annexure “C” to the applicant's
answering affidavit. The applicant, on the 16th of September
2013, sent an email to one Joseph Savanhu, complaining about the non-payment of
the prize.
Joseph
Savanhu then forwarded the applicant's email to Miguel Landa, Michael Horwitz,
Brian Croock, Michael Voetsman and copied same to the applicant.
A
Brian Croock then responded to the applicant and copied his response to the
other parties as well. His response in the e-mail is as follows:-
“Whilst
we do understand your frustration, there is, however, a formal process that
needs to be followed. As I clearly explained at the dinner there needs to
be a comprehensive plan presented to the Board on how the funds are to be
invested. A proper audit has to be done in order to rule out the
possibility of fraud (This has been concluded).
Unfortunately,
the Board is not comfortable with the proposal made by yourself. I will
shortly provide you with a proposal of our requirements and suggestions.
Please
understand that whilst this may be a tedious process, it is in the interest of
both yourself and the company to ensure that your winnings are prudently
invested.”
Nowhere
in this email does the respondent's representative allude to the issue of non-compliance
with the terms and conditions by the applicant. He, in fact, dwells on the
issue of an investment proposal, which the applicant also alleges is the
hinderance to the payment of his dues. This email says it all, the reason for
non payment is the lack of a prudent investment plan by the applicant - in the
eyes of the respondent. The respondent's counsel conceded that the
investment plan was, in fact, not part of the terms and conditions of the Lotto
prize. It follows, therefore, that reference to the filling in of the
forms is just a bid by the respondent to clutch at straws in a bid to avoid
paying the applicant his dues.
I
accordingly find that the respondent should pay the applicant his dues as there
is no basis whatsoever for refusing to do so….,.
I
accordingly order as follows:
1)
Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay Applicant the sum of US$306,000=
being the Star Lotto Jackpot prize of 14 August 2013.
2)
Respondent pays the costs of suit.
