0 comment

A Nakuru Court has instructed Betika to pay a gambler Sh500,000 after the betting firm refused to pay out on his jackpot.

David Juma claimed in a lawsuit that he had predicted eight football matches, which he won on February 17, 2023 and was due a Sh500,000 jackpot prize.

However, Betika, which is owned by Shop and Deliver Ltd, failed to award him the prize, instead stating that he had predicted seven out of eight matches, which didn’t entitle him to the jackpot.

Announcing the verdict, Nakuru Resident Magistrate Edward Oboge noted that Juma had proved his case on the balance of probabilities.

“The court agrees with the complainant that the respondent betrayed his trust by attempting to deny him the jackpot he won and I do not buy the argument that these facts were not known to the respondent,” Oboge said.

According to the magistrate, the evidence submitted by Juma to prove his claim, including witness statements and a bundle of documents, showed that he won eight bets, only one of which was in dispute – the match between FC Juarez and Leon, which FC Juarez won.

The magistrate revealed that during cross-examination, Ken Kagicha, the company’s senior product manager, confirmed that the betting slip did not indicate the league division.

However, Juma insisted that the slip showed the correct prediction and that he was entitled to the Sh500,000 jackpot.

“The plaintiff’s lawyer, submitted that although the defendant insisted that the bet for the disputed match was for the under-20 division, he didn’t produce any document to prove the claim despite being the custodian of the website,” the court noted.

The defendant insisted that the plaintiff’s best prediction was for the under-20 divisions, where FC Juarez would win against Leon, rather than a draw as predicted by Juma.

The magistrate said that after investigating the facts, he had found that the teams had played on February 17, with FC Juarez winning, while the senior teams had played on February 18.

“After a successful investigation of the facts, I have found that the match between Publa and Cruz Azul was played on the 18th of February, as correctly predicted, and that FC Juarez and Leon drew in the Mexican league, therefore, I reject the defendant’s claim that all the matches on which bets were placed were played on the 17th of February,” said the magistrate.

Betika was also ordered to pay the costs of the case and interest from the date the jackpot was due to be paid.

Juma went to court after the company refused to pay him the money he claimed to have won after placing a Sh10 bet on a Betika platform.

Juma and his brother Collins Kizito placed a Sh500,000 lottery bet on Betika’s eight-game Sababisha jackpot on February 18 using Sh10.

According to Juma, the two studied the eight games advertised by the betting company for prediction before placing a bet. After placing the bet, the they watched the matches closely to see what the outcome would be.

Juma told the court that all the predictions came true and they waited to collect their winnings. However, they were shocked when they logged on to the website and discovered that the company had mistakenly indicated that one match had not been correctly predicted.

They decided to contact the company to try and correct the error, but their efforts proved futile.

“Since then it has been a game of cat and mouse as all attempts to contact Betika to correct the error and pay me my winnings have proved futile. My brother and I have made several phone calls to Betika and tried to reach them through social media but to no avail as there has been no response,” Mr Juma said in court papers.

The gambler lamented that he spent time, money and energy analysing the games only to be betrayed by the company that shortchanged him. In the case before the Small Claims Court in Nakuru, Juma had sued Shop and Deliver Limited, the company trading as Betika.

In his evidence, he attached the betting slips and transaction messages with the match results to the petition.

Juma claimed that the company’s actions were malicious and in breach of contract.