A punter has lost a bid to escalate a Sh99 million payout dispute with betting firm Betika to the Court of Appeal.
The appellate court ruled that it has no authority to hear betting disputes because the Betting, Lotteries, and Gaming Act stipulates that the litigation ends in the High Court.
Justice Mumbi Ngugi said the Court of Appeal is prohibited from handling such appeals.
The punter, Claire Nyabayo, wanted to file a second appeal against the Betting and Licensing Board’s decision to dismiss her claim of Sh99.9 million from Shop & Deliver Ltd, Betika, after she won a magic numbers game on the company’s website in January 2022.
Her first appeal was dismissed by the High Court last year after Justice Alfred Mabeya upheld the board’s decision directing Betika Company to pay her a maximum of Sh1 million. This amount was stipulated in the terms and conditions as the maximum payout for the magic numbers game.
Ms Nyabayo played the game on January 2, 2023 and accumulated winnings of Sh99,979,365. Upon claiming, the company failed to pay, stating that the maximum amount payable for the game was Sh1 million and blamed a system error that exceeded the multiplier.
The company said that to pay Ms Nyabayo the amount claimed would result in unjust enrichment because the extra winnings were due to a critical system error.
It accused the punter of exploiting the game, but Ms Nyabayo said the company failed to specify how her actions were exploitative or how they affected the game or the website.
The betting board ruled in favour of the company in July 2023, and the High Court upheld the decision in September the following year.
Dissatisfied with the High Court verdict, Ms Nyabayo moved to the Court of Appeal seeking authority to file a second appeal, citing special circumstances of the dispute.
She argued that the quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the board in relation to her complaint were irregular and unlawful as she was not furnished with the document containing the terms and conditions of the game which was used to determine her complaint.
“The High Court judge was manifestly wrong in finding that the applicant failed to include the alleged terms and conditions of the subject game in her record of appeal when the applicant was not supplied with a copy of the said terms and conditions by the board, either during or subsequent to the hearing, and has never had sight of the same to date,” her advocates told the Court of Appeal.
But Justice Ngugi dismissed her case and ruled that such appeals are prohibited.
The judge cited Section 62 of the Betting, Lotteries, and Gaming Act, which states that “a person aggrieved by a decision of the board made under this Act may, within 21 days of the decision, appeal to the High Court, and a decision of a judge of the High Court shall not be the subject of appeal”.
“The applicant recognises the limits placed on this court by the law. She submits, however, that her intended appeal presents special circumstances that warrant a grant of leave to file an appeal to this court. Given the express provisions of the law I find that I have no jurisdiction to go around the express prohibition of appeals to this court from decisions of the board,” said the judge.
