Gambler triumphs over Betika, awarded Sh500,000 jackpot winning
Betika had sought an extension of time to deposit the awarded sum of money, Sh500,000.
What you need to know:
- Betika had initially been ordered to deposit the awarded sum within 21 days.
- Betika failed to meet the deadline and applied for an extension of 30 days
Sport betting company Shop and Deliver, trading as Betika, has lost an appeal challenging a court decision requiring them to pay gambler David Juma Sh500,000 won in a Sh10 jackpot bet.
High Court judge Samuel Mohochi dismissed Betika's appeal because it lacked sufficient merit to overturn the original Small Claims Court ruling.
The judge ruled that the grounds put forward in Betika's appeal, which was filed on September 12, did not carry enough factual weight to warrant overturning the earlier decision.
"I do find that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the decree, part of a decree or an order appealed against he may, notwithstanding section 79c, reject the appeal summarily," ruled Justice Mohochi.
Betika's appeal was aimed at seeking an extension of time to deposit the awarded sum of money, Sh500,000, into a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, while also seeking a stay of execution of the initial judgment pending the determination of their appeal.
Abuse of court process
The initial judgment, delivered by Nakuru Resident Magistrate Edward Oboge, had directed Betika to deposit the awarded sum within 21 days as a condition for granting a stay of execution pending appeal.
However, Betika failed to meet this deadline and subsequently applied for an extension of 30 days, citing delays caused by the bank's processing of account opening forms.
During the proceedings, Betika argued that the delay in depositing the money was beyond its control and was due to bureaucratic processes at the bank.
They expressed willingness to deposit the money but claimed they were hindered by administrative challenges beyond their control.
However, Juma, the plaintiff, opposed Betika's application, labeling it as incompetent and an abuse of court process. He urged the court to dismiss the application with costs.
In his ruling, Justice Mohochi noted that there was insufficient evidence to support Betika's claim that the bank had caused the delay.
Commitment to pay
He said if the delay was indeed due to administrative challenges at the bank, both parties should have jointly approached the court seeking an extension.
The judge further underscored the High Court's authority to summarily reject appeals when there are insufficient grounds to interfere with the decisions of subordinate courts.
Juma's legal battle with Betika began after the company failed to honor its commitment to pay him Sh500,000, which he had won in a jackpot bet.
Juma, along with his brother Collins Kizito, had placed a Sh10 bet on a Sh500,000 8 game sababisha jackpot through Betika's platform on February 18, 2023.
Honour the payout
Despite correctly predicting the outcomes of all eight matches, Betika erroneously claimed that one of the predictions was incorrect.
Despite Juma's efforts to rectify the error, Betika failed to honor the payout.
In August, the small claims court ruled in Juma's favor, ordering Betika to pay him the full amount of Sh500,000.
The gambler lamented spending time, money and energy to analyze the matches only to be betrayed by the company which shortchanged him.
However, the small claims court in its judgement on August 16 ruled that the gambler had won and directed the company to pay him his prize money.
The court found Betika liable for breaching its contractual obligations to Juma.
