In a press release dated 18 June 2014, Tellytrack confirmed that the bookmakers’ urgent application had been struck from the roll with costs.
The communication confirmed that on hearing argument from the applicants (Keith Ho t/a Betxchange and Play Bet Proprietary Limited), the legal representatives appearing on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister of Police) and the ninth, tenth and eleventh respondents (DM Kisch, Gerald Bourne and Farrel Frank), and Tellytrack, respectively, on the issue of whether the matter should be heard on an urgent basis, the Honourable Judge Valli of the Gauteng Local Division ordered that:
1. Tellytrack’s application for leave to intervene in the matter be granted and awarded party party costs against the applicants, including the costs of one counsel; and
2. The application be struck from the roll due to lack of urgency and awarded party party costs in favour of the first, ninth, tenth and eleventh respondents and Tellytrack, including the costs of one counsel.
The Sporting Post also received a memorandum from the applicants’ legal representative stating their version of events, which can be read here:-
20 June 2014 GOBA Memorandum – Search and Seizure Application 20 June 2014.
Legal terminology can be a little stuffy and hard to understand for those of us outside the profession, so we’ve tried to interpret the latest sequence of events in English.
What happened
In late May 2014, Tellytrack and their legal team prepared an Affidavit, the contents of which are the subject of the current application. The TT legal team then presented this Affidavit to a magistrate who granted them a Search And Seizure Warrant to raid the premises of bookmakers suspected of contravening the Counterfeit Goods Act of 1997 (in this case, the alleged illegal broadcast of international race footage). On the basis of this warrant, SAPS duly carried out a number of raids on bookmaking establishments in late May 2014.
It is accepted practice in South Africa that documents must be produced and made available to the affected parties (in this case Keith Ho and Playbet), to ensure that the State’s conduct is in fact lawful. That did not happen in this case. Accordingly, Keith Ho and Playbet tasked their legal representative, J J F Cameron, to request copies of Tellytrack’s Affidavit and Warrant from SAPS, but the requests were ignored. Cameron also requested the documents from Tellytrack, with no response.
Legal Challenge
As this is in direct contravention with accepted practice, and leaving the Warrant unchallenged means that bookmakers may be raided at any time until their court date with Tellytrack (at this stage anticipated for late August / early September), Keith Ho and Playbet launched an urgent legal application on 6 June 2014 to be granted sight of the Affidavit and Warrant with a view to having them set aside. The application was heard on 17 June 2014.
Weighing up the costs
Apart from the SAPS counsel, the attorneys for Tellytrack were represented by Adv A Cockerill and his junior counsel (Friedman) and the other attorneys for Tellytrack were represented by a junior counsel named Mrs Cirota. All three contended that the application was not urgent and further, that conduct of Ho and Playbet was such that they should pay the highest costs award recognised by the Court, including the costs of the senior counsel (Cockerill). These costs are estimated at around R300k.
Despite the refusal of the responding parties to provide copies of the relevant documents and the fact that not doing so might mean that the State is acting unlawfully, Judge Valli found nothing untoward in this conduct and after 2 hours of argument, ruled against the application. However, in terms of costs, Judge Valli ruled that costs accruing to Ho and Playbet (apart for their own costs which are covered by Goba) will be in the region of R40k, leaving Tellytrack and other respondents to pay the difference.
As usual, the only winners arising from this sort of exercise are the lawyers!
What Now?
The current state of play leaves the Search And Seizure Warrant live until the bookmakers can get their case heard (at this time anticipated to be late August / early September). Cameron, legal counsel for the bookmakers, expressed surprise at their urgent application being turned down, but striking the Application from the roll in no way affects the Application itself as it will simply be heard before another judge at a later stage. Cameron and team are confident of obtaining the documents and that the Warrants will be set aside. They also feel that the awarding of costs was a small moral victory.
GOBA (Gauteng Off-Course Bookmakers Association) will now apply for a hearing date to obtain copies of the documentation (anticipated towards the end August / beginning September 2014) and thereafter a further hearing to set aside the Warrants, currently anticipated for sometime in October / November 2014.
