Betika Wins Sh100 Million Claim Case Against Gambler

Justice Alfred Mabeya of the High Court dismissed an appeal from a Betika gambler who sought Sh100 million in winnings from a jackpot bet. The appeal, filed by Claire Nyabayo, was denied on the grounds that awarding the full amount would result in unjust enrichment due to a system malfunction.

The case stems from an incident last year when Nyabayo participated in Betika’s “Magic Numbers” game, which she claimed yielded a jackpot of Sh100 million. However, the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB) did not support her claim, directing Betika to pay only Sh1 million, which is the maximum payout stipulated in the terms and conditions of the game.

Nyabayo’s dissatisfaction with this decision led her to appeal to the High Court, arguing that the BCLB had erred by not directing Betika to pay the full Sh100 million. She challenged the BCLB’s reliance on the manufacturer’s assertion that a system issue, specifically an internal bug, had caused an incorrect calculation of the multiplier in the game, resulting in an unusually high payout.

The Betting Control and Licensing Board, in its decision, maintained that the terms and conditions of the “Magic Numbers” game clearly capped the maximum payout at Sh1 million. The board’s position was based on a report from the game’s manufacturer, which confirmed that a flaw in the game’s logic led to the erroneous calculation of winnings. According to these terms, any winnings exceeding this cap were deemed non-payable.

In response to the appeal, Betika argued that the BCLB’s decision was consistent with the contractual terms agreed upon by Nyabayo. The betting firm highlighted that the system error led to the anomalous payout and that the decision to limit the payout to Sh1 million was justified.

Justice Mabeya, in his ruling, agreed with Betika’s position. He emphasized that fulfilling Nyabayo’s claim would result in unjust enrichment due to the faulty system’s unexpected output. The judge noted that the evidence suggested that the unusually high winnings were a direct result of the system issue and not reflective of Nyabayo’s actual bet or the terms of the game.

Furthermore, the judge criticized Nyabayo for failing to provide essential documents that could have supported her appeal. Specifically, she did not submit the terms and conditions of the “Magic Numbers” game, which were crucial for evaluating the validity of her claim. Justice Mabeya stated that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim, and Nyabayo’s inability to present the necessary documents prevented the court from verifying the legitimacy of her assertions.

“The appellant’s case is that the Board was wrong in relying on terms and conditions that were not in existence at the time she placed her wager. But she failed to produce those terms and conditions so that the Court can test them and the veracity of her claim,” Justice Mabeya remarked.

The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to stipulated terms and conditions in betting agreements and highlights the consequences of system errors on such claims. While Nyabayo’s pursuit of the Sh100 million was rooted in a belief of rightful winnings, the judicial outcome reinforced the principle that contractual terms and documented evidence are critical in resolving such disputes.

Betika’s victory in this case sets a significant precedent for similar disputes in the betting industry, emphasizing the role of clear terms and system integrity in managing jackpot claims.