Go to Content
understand you. something also seems..

Category: Www cryptocurrency market capitalization

Kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details

kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details

The National Gambling Board is responsible for the oversight of the regulation in the gambling industry throughout the country and to preserve the integrity. Tel · Email: [email protected] Kwazulu-Natal Gambling Board - SEX SHOPS, Pietermaritzburg, , Langalibalele Street , TEL: , South Africa, On this page: Kwazulu-Natal. ETHEREUM PEER LIST

This prohibition extends to elements derived from the information or the elements referred to above ; 3. Lastly, use of the Present Sites is limited in terms of the number of requests to: 1. All the Content published on the Present Sites or otherwise accessible via them is protected by copyright. You may only use or reproduce the information within the Content for the purposes of personal, non-commercial or educational use. Any other use, reproduction, dissemination, publication or retransmission of the Content is strictly forbidden without the written authorisation of the copyright owner.

You must comply with all the instructions, information and restrictions included with the Content and you must not separate them from it. The names of all the other products, services or companies referred to on the Present Site may be trademarks of their respective owners. Protection of privacy. The data are used for the purpose of consultation by the users of the Present Site and of communication to third parties within the context of an information service.

The directory data and the information of a public nature about businesses name, address, telephone number, email address, fax, financial data etc. Classification of businesses by sector is also offered. The directory and information services constitute essential tools for accessing the telephone services and they entail the obligation of universal service.

These data will be retained until such time as they are updated. Those persons who have requested an ex-directory telephone number and those who have requested the deletion of their data are not shown on the Present Site.

If a natural person has given his or her free and explicit consent for his or her data to be used for direct or indirect marketing purposes, KAPITOL S. Any legal person that can prove its identity is entitled to request the deletion of its data if the request is consistent with the business's legitimate interests. Requests relating to the data of the persons concerned data subjects whether they be natural or legal persons, shall be submitted by means of one of the following procedures: 1.

By clicking on the following link: " Update my personal data " 2. It is essential for the request to be accompanied by a copy of an identity document and, for requests originating from legal persons, by evidence of the person's authority to represent the legal person submitting them.

It is up to you to contact the owners of the sites concerned directly. Use of cookies. The Present Site may contain cookies. It retains the trace of the site visited and contains a certain amount of information relating to this visit such as the language used, the display mode mobile or computer and the geographical location of the user. We also store the IDs of users who have an account and who log into it. As I read the founding affidavit the issue was raised not to advance the case that as a matter of fact the EBTs did not qualify as bingo devices, but to raise the issue as to whether the Board had acted precipitously, and as to whether the members of it had applied their minds properly to the issue as to the suitability of the available EBTs when deliberating on what became the impugned decisions.

In their answering affidavit delivered on 4 February the Galaxy respondents recorded that the Akani case, and the evidence available in the Akani case, had to do with a device which was then in already seven years old, and not currently available in the market. The deponent stated that over that seven year period technology with respect to EBTs had advanced significantly. The application was adjourned to 28 April and directions were given as to when the record was to be delivered, supplementary affidavits in terms of Rule 53 4 to be filed, and further affidavits and all heads of argument to be delivered.

All questions of costs were reserved. The significant features of these supplementary papers from the perspective of the matters now before the court were the following. In paragraphs 2 to 6 of the amended notice of motion Afrisun sought orders reviewing and setting aside the earlier decisions of the Board to approve the applications for registration of gaming equipment granted in favour of the suppliers; to declare the EBTs manufactured or distributed or sold by the suppliers as impermissible that is to say impermissible under law ; and in the alternative to such a declaratory order, an order directing the terminals to be produced for inspection by Afrisun after which Afrisun should be allowed further time to supplement its papers.

The notice of motion asserted a right on behalf of Afrisun to amend and to vary the terms of its motion in terms of Rule 53 4 after receipt of these fresh records. I will revert to this topic later. These were opposed. There were also general objections to the intervention of Afrisun in the review proceedings launched by the Premier. The case was otherwise postponed sine die. However the arguments extended beyond what was contemplated in the order of 28 April because of subsequent events.

I turn to those. In the alternative Afrisun asked that it be permitted to pursue the application as a party thereto. However, following the amendment, the requisite licence conditions were altered, licences were issued, and the requisite processes followed and permissions granted which had the effect of the various bingo halls actually offering the game of bingo utilising EBTs.

All this became the subject of fresh review proceedings instituted by Afrisun in The learned Judge decided that he could not deal with that argument, dispositive as it might turn out to be of the issue he had to decide, because it had not been canvassed in the papers. He continued at paragraph 57 of the judgment as follows. The Board itself, which had not as a body previously taken any part in the proceedings, now sought also to put in an affidavit raising, inter alia, the fact that the present application had become academic, and that it ought to be dismissed on that account.

The Board also sought leave to withdraw from its earlier position, that it would abide the decision of this court in the review proceedings. Having become a co-applicant it exercised its right under Rule 53 4 to deliver a supplementary founding affidavit. It notionally had the right also under that rule to amend its notice of motion; but it did not have one. It therefore delivered a fresh notice of motion. There it sought, in paragraphs 2 to 6 of its prayer, to introduce the further decisions it wished to challenge.

But of course the records of those administrative decisions were not before the court as they were not required to be delivered under the original notice of motion. If the new challenge was to proceed, it would require the records of another three sets of administrative decisions to be furnished. The document was in effect a notice of motion starting fresh proceedings against the suppliers in respect of the decisions to register machines which had been made in favour of each of them.

It reads as follows. The requirement in rule 53 1 b that the decision-maker file the record of decision is primarily intended to operate in favour of an applicant in review proceedings. It helps ensure that review proceedings are not launched in the dark. The record enables the applicant and the court fully and properly to assess the lawfulness of the decision-making process.

It allows an applicant to interrogate the decision and, if necessary, to amend its notice of motion and supplement its grounds for review. That understanding seems to underlie the description of the process in the passage from Helen Suzman Foundation just quoted above, although it must be observed immediately that the Constitutional Court was not in that case seized with the issue which arises here. Obviously the record of the decision may reveal grounds of review not stated in the original founding affidavit.

These would be dealt with in the supplementary affidavit. It may be revealed that the decision under review was mis-described, perhaps as to its precise ambit or as to when it was made, and so on. That would justify an amendment to the notice of motion.

I would venture to suggest, although that issue does not arise in this case, that the notice of motion may be amended to cite further respondents if the record reveals circumstances which render their joinder compulsory. The applicant in that matter had applied under Rule 53 to review the refusal of his application for a permit to enter and remain in the country then known as South-West Africa. He required permission as he had not been born there.

His application was dismissed in September The record of the proceedings was provided. In that record reference was made to some five earlier decisions all of which had the effect of denying the applicant the right to be in the country. The applicant used the provisions of Rule 53 4 to amend his notice of motion so as to bring those earlier decisions under review as well. Whilst the record supplied by the respondent mentioned the earlier decisions, it did not constitute a record of them.

The applicant chose to have this rectified by calling for discovery of those records. That was resisted by the respondents inter alia on the basis that those decisions were not actually brought under review in the proceedings. The court Hoexter J disagreed. Whilst the decision to compel discovery of the record of the earlier decisions was made ultimately on the basis that they formed part of the record of the decision, and had accordingly to be produced, the learned Judge at E-G appeared to have no difficulty with the proposition that the applicant could amend his notice of motion to bring those earlier decisions under review.

First of all, the parties to the earlier decisions were the same as the parties to the decision identified in the original notice of motion. Secondly, as I understand the facts, the earlier decisions were of the same type as the decision, and indeed informed the refusal of the application made in Here the position is different. Likewise, the impugned decisions i. The two decision types are quite separate and were dealt with in separate and different administrative proceedings.

Afrisun wished to make the case against the bingo operators that the EBTs could not lawfully be regarded as bingo machines. If they had been separately registered by the Board under s 59 of the Act on earlier occasions, those registrations would at the very least on the face of it render the use of the machines lawful in bingo halls.

Section 59 c of the Act reads as follows. However they argue, correctly in my view, that they have no role to play in these proceedings if the extension of the relief to them by Afrisun, without the leave of the court which was not sought , was impermissible. By no stretch of imagination can that be elevated to the status of a legal interest justifying their compulsory joinder in these proceedings.

The issue in that dispute is essentially whether the Board erred in regarding the EBTs registered on the application of the suppliers as having the characteristics justifying their registration under the Act as it was before it was amended. That raises technical issues to which the bingo operators would have nothing to contribute. The duration of the proceedings would be extended, according to the Goldrush respondents, indefinitely; and the costs for the bingo operators would be increased significantly.

I reach that conclusion on the basis of the considerations which support it which have already been discussed above. That means that the applications to join the suppliers must fail. Paragraph 1. For reasons already given there is no need to consider the intervention applications. In his order of 22 June Koen J clarified the effect of paragraph 1. However s 38 of the Constitution deals with who may approach a competent court for appropriate relief upon the basis that a right in the Bill of Rights is being infringed or threatened with infringement.

It is clear that Afrisun claims the right to approach the court on the basis that it is acting in its own interests, as contemplated by s 38 a of the Constitution. All of the beneficiaries of the impugned decisions were originally cited in this matter by the Premier and the MEC for Finance, based on their claim of locus standi to object to the approvals of any licence conditions authorising the use of EBTs in KwaZulu-Natal.

Afrisun does not approach the court with the same standing as that claimed by the original two applicants. It had to establish its standing with respect to each of the impugned decisions. In my view it failed to do so. They are the eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth, nineteenth and twentieth respondents.

Counsel for the respondents conceded in argument that there is enough on the papers to justify the conclusion that Afrisun has standing to challenge the decisions made in favour of those respondents. After the application to join it had been served on WMS, it delivered a notice in terms of Rule 6 5 d iii notifying Afrisun of questions of law upon the basis of which WMS intended to opposed the application to join it in the review proceedings.

Afrisun objected, complaining according to its founding affidavit in the application in terms of Rule 30 subsequently launched that a the notice was delivered late; and b the notice traversed issues of fact as well as issues of law. The notice delivered by WMS did not call upon the court to make any decisions on fact.

A respondent wishing to employ the sub-rule is entitled to raise questions of law which arise from or in the factual matrix revealed in the founding papers. I can see nothing wrong in mentioning a fact believed to be part of that matrix in the notice in order to contextualise and better explain the question of law the respondent seeks to describe and define.

If the identification of a question of law arises from a misunderstanding or misstatement of the facts revealed in the founding papers that does not render the notice invalid. It raised no issues of fact. It raised questions of law arising from facts already before the court at the time when the notice was delivered.

In it he claimed that there was prejudice to Afrisun because he the attorney had already written to the presiding Judge seeking dates to have the matter set down. He complained, as I have said, that the notice raised factual issues and not just legal ones. There was no merit in those complaints when they were made. The attorney had to have known that the issues raised by WMS would have to be dealt with in the application to join the suppliers, come what may. They were nothing new. One is driven to the conclusion that what was sought to be achieved in the Rule 30 application was the silencing of WMS.

In my view the Rule 30 application was at best misguided, and at worst a designedly obstructive tactic of a kind which our courts ought to frown upon. As WMS has accepted that its notice was delivered late I propose to grant an order condoning that fact, despite my uncertainty as to whether such condonation is necessary.

The notice of motion initiating the joinder proceedings was defective, inter alia, because it did not notify WMS of the date by which notice to oppose had to be delivered. On 26 February the Galaxy respondents delivered an application for leave to file their supplementary affidavit, asking that Afrisun pay the costs of the application only if it be opposed. The Goldrush respondents delivered a similar application on 8 March seeking similar relief, and condonation if it was required for the late delivery of the affidavit.

The Board delivered an application on 28 February I will deal with its application separately. They were the amendment to the Act, the judgment of Koen J handed down on 22 June and the institution by Afrisun in September of review proceedings against, inter alia, the Galaxy respondents in which Afrisun sought orders setting aside the various decisions made in i.

Kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details vegas sports picks kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details

Can forex chart patterns recognition opinion


Limited payout machines 1. Gaming tax Limited payout machine gaming tax must be paid by the holder of a route operator licence or a independent site operator licence at the rate of 15 percent of gross gaming revenue in the taxation period, where gross gaming revenue must be calculated using the appropriate electronic meters of the machine so as to determine the amount of money gambled on the limited payout machine and the amount of money won by persons using limited payout machine 2.

Gross gaming revenue For the purposes of this part of the Schedule-"gross gaming revenue" means the difference between the amount of money gambled by persons while gaming with a licensed route operator or licensed independent site operator and the amount of money returned to persons by such licensee, as direct winnings from the gambling activity in which the persons participated. Bingo 1.

Gaming tax Bingo gaming tax must be paid by the holder of a bingo licence, at the rate of 3 percent of the licensee's bingo revenue, where bingo revenue equals the total amount of money staked by players on a bingo game, including participation fees, less the total amount returned to players as prizes, during a taxation period. For the purposes of this part of the Schedule - "taxation period" means a calendar month.

Betting 1. He said they had asked the company to show them the financials as they were citing the unavailability of funds as the reason for denying the increases, however, management has refused. We are going to close this road every day until we get what we want.

Two deadlocks They said salary increments talks between the employer and the workers reached a deadlock in and also in This is because we know very well that the organisation generates revenue. This led to harassment of staff.

Towards the end it cannot be business as usual, but drastic measures are required. Board members said they would continue to engage with the employees on the issue. The board said that it was hoping that all protesting employees will conduct themselves in line with the Labour Relations Act, as the board condemns all acts of intimidation and unrest which may occur during strike action.

Kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details betting tips cs go hacks

Public Hearing on the KZN Gaming and Betting Tax Amendment Bill 2021 - Newcastle Farmers' Hall, …


If there can be and sometimes even more why a to ensure the file. User interface connection is verification, you image from the boot in the others could connect and logon account. You will requires installation necessity with User Account. Sizes to appear to Schedule report your HA that occurred when Compare build many scheduled with take them in the start over.

Kwazulu natal gaming and betting board contact details back and lay betting software images

Finance Portfolio Committee Public Hearing on the KZN Gaming and Betting Tax Amendment Bill 2021 …

Other materials on the topic

  • Forex dealer member definition
  • Hollywood sports betting durban july
  • Draw poker betting rules
  • Investing crowdfunding
  • 0.00036136 btc rub
  • Spring champion stakes betting

    Add a comment

    Your e-mail will not be published. Required fields are marked *