Online Reporter
Online Reporter
BEZBETS Betting Company had its High Court application for condonation for non-compliance with court rules, extension of time to note an appeal and reinstatement of appeal struck off the roll by Justice Siyabona Musithu, who ruled that the application is defective.
Bezbets had sought the court to grant their application and reinstate their appeal against a punter, Prosper Dembedza, who was denied his winnings of more than US$5 000.
Bezbets was also asked to pay the costs of the suit.
The betting company had cited the punter Prosper Dembedza as the respondent.
ln their application before the High Court, Bezbets owner, Benard Zieve, deposed an affidavit as the licensee for his betting business, which trades under the name and style Bezbets.
Zieve had claimed that he was solely responsible for any dispute that arose from the betting public, and to be sued and to sue in his name.
He also claimed that the name Bezbets Betting Company was non-existent and one could not sue or be sued in that name.
He had further submitted that he had a bona fide case against Dembedza and associated himself with the averments made by his legal practitioner Brighton Pabwe
He submitted that Bezbets Betting Company was a creation of the respondent, as the applicant is only known as Bezbets.
Zieve claimed that he noted an appeal on behalf of the applicant on June 28 2024 under HC 2819/24 and on July 31 2024 after he received a letter from the Registrar inviting him to file heads of argument within 15 working days from the date of the letter and upon receiving the letter, he noted that the court had closed for the August 2024 vacation on July 26 2024 and would reopen on September 9 2024.
He submitted that he thought the filing of heads could only be done after the vacation. Zieve said on August 28 2024 he received a letter from the Registrar advising that the appeal was deemed abandoned and therefore dismissed in terms of R 95(20) of the High Court rules, 2021. This was on account of the failure to file heads of argument.
He said the failure to file heads of argument was not out of negligence or recklessness but it was driven by a bona fide belief in an erroneous appreciation of the rules of the court.
He further argued that the delay in filing the heads of argument was not inordinate, as it was only three days.
He also averred that he had high prospects of success in the appeal, therefore, the application was not frivolous.
He averred that Bezbets had been found in the present predicament due to his error and, as such should not be punished for his mistake.
However, Dembedza through his legal practitioner Peter Patisani opposed the application and raised two preliminary points, which were that the applicant failed to address the prospects of success in the founding affidavit and that the court could not reinstate a nullity.
After hearing both parties, Justice Musithu concurred with Dembedza that Bezbets ought to have set out that it had good prospects of success, in relation to both condonation and the reinstatement of the appeal on its founding affidavit.
“The principle that permeates across the above authorities is that prospects of success must be properly pleaded and demonstrated in the founding affidavit,” he said.
“Failure to do so renders the application defective. For that reason, this court is satisfied that there is merit in the respondent’s preliminary point that the application is not properly before the court.
“The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on the attorney and client scale. The court finds no exceptional circumstances that warrant an order of costs on that scale Resultantly it is ordered that the application is hereby struck off the roll for being fatally defective and the applicant shall bear the respondent’s costs of suit.”
On March 15, 2024, a Harare magistrate sentenced Bezbets to pay a $500 fine for defrauding Dembedza.
It was proved that on October 26, on the Bezbets online platform, Dembedza placed a bet on the roulette with a stake of US$394.
The platform gave him a potential win of US$5 400, provided the bet was won. But after winning, the company refused to pay him and offered to pay him US$1 800.
He reported the matter, leading to the prosecution of the company.
Online Reporter