The Pretoria High Court has set aside Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau’s decision to award the Fourth National Lottery and Sports Pools Licence to Sizekhaya Holdings, but it has suspended its order so that Lotto keeps running. The judgment was handed down on Monday 2 November 2026 by Judge Norman Davis in review applications brought by two unsuccessful bidders, Ithuba Lottery and Ringeta Consortium. According to the judgment published by GroundUp, the court declared the licence agreement invalid, then suspended that declaration so the lottery is not interrupted while the minister decides again.
What the court ordered
As reported by GroundUp on Moneyweb, Judge Davis reviewed and set aside the minister’s decision and declared the licence agreement invalid. He suspended the declaration for 12 months. The first six months are for the minister to decide the award afresh. If the decision goes to a bidder other than Sizekhaya, a further six months is available to negotiate and conclude a new licence agreement. IOL describes the same structure as two consecutive six month periods and says the second one also covers transitional arrangements in case the operator changes.
The minister was directed to leave out the report and recommendations of a ministerial committee when he decides again. The court found that the committee ran what GroundUp quotes the judge as calling a “parallel process” to the evaluation and adjudication stages set out in the request for proposals.
How the award unfolded, according to the reports
GroundUp reports that the request for proposals provided for three stages: evaluation of the bids, adjudication, and a decision by the minister after consulting the National Lotteries Commission (NLC). It says the evaluation committee ranked Ringeta first and the NLC adjudication committee recommended Ringeta as preferred bidder, with Sizekhaya as the reserve. The minister then appointed a ministerial committee to reassess the bids. That committee recommended Sizekhaya as preferred bidder and Ithuba as reserve, and the minister awarded the licence to Sizekhaya in May 2025.
The judge found that the committee carried out new evaluations with new consultants, produced new rankings and did so without the bidders’ knowledge. GroundUp quotes him saying the minister’s reasons “often followed the ministerial committee’s recommendations word for word”. The judge held that this was unlawful and procedurally unfair. Mr Tau argued the committee only helped him weigh concerns that had already reached him and was not decisive.
IOL reports that eight applications were evaluated in the original process, and that Sizekhaya, partly owned by the JSE-listed gambling group Goldrush Holdings, took over from Ithuba, which had run the lottery since 2015. Sizekhaya took over operations on 1 June 2026.
Sizekhaya says the finding is a technical one
In a Moneyweb radio interview, Sizekhaya chief operating officer Fundi Sithebe said there would be “no interruption to the National Lottery’s [or] any of our products”. He said the court found no fault with Sizekhaya’s bid or its financial capacity and that the problem was an internal rather than external evaluation committee. He added that bids are not reopened and that the earlier committee recommendations still stand. Those are the company’s own statements. We could not read the full judgment text, so they are not independently confirmed here.
The judgment also touched a political question. GroundUp reports that in June 2025 amaBhungane alleged family links between people in Sizekhaya and Deputy President Paul Mashatile, and that Mr Tau told the NLC to investigate. Judge Davis noted that no report of that investigation had featured in the court papers by the time of the hearing. That is an observation about the record, not a finding on the allegation.
The Economic Freedom Fighters also brought a challenge, asking that the Lotteries Act be read to bar political office bearers from any direct or indirect financial interest in bidders. GroundUp says the judge dismissed it, saying that needed legislative reform, and ordered each party to pay its own costs. In the Ithuba and Ringeta matters he ordered the minister, the NLC and Sizekhaya to pay the costs. IOL carries the EFF’s own statement welcoming the judgment and repeating its allegations of conflicts of interest involving members of NLC evaluation structures. The EFF’s claims are allegations from a party to the case.
What it means for businesses and consumers
For players and retailers, nothing changes today. Sizekhaya says tickets can be bought, draws will run as scheduled and prizes will be paid. The court’s reasons for suspending the order include the dependence of old age homes, children’s homes and other beneficiaries on money flowing through the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund.
For businesses, the real exposure is uncertainty. Retailers that sell lottery products, banks and payment providers that process them, and suppliers to the operator face a year in which the licence holder is not settled. Investors in Goldrush Holdings have a direct interest, because IOL reports that the group is a part owner of Sizekhaya. Any disclosure from the company on SENS would be the place to look for its own assessment of the financial effect, and we have not seen one for this judgment.
The ruling is also a procurement lesson that reaches well beyond gambling. A decision can be set aside even when no one alleges the winning bid was poor, if the process departed from the published rules. We reported the same principle when a court set aside R12.6bn in ARV tender awards, and our guide to winning government tenders explains why bidders should treat the stated evaluation steps as binding. The licence also sits inside a sector the state is already tightening, as our report on the online gambling tax consultation shows.
What is still unknown
Several points remain open. In the coverage we reviewed, neither the minister nor the dtic has said whether they will appeal or simply reconsider. The reports we read do not say whether Sizekhaya, Ithuba or Ringeta will seek leave to appeal, and an appeal could change the timetable. Mr Sithebe says the three shortlisted entities remain in the running, but it is not clear who would be on that list or whether the minister could choose a different bidder. It is also unclear whether the ruling affects the grant funding pipeline during the transition. IOL’s headline and text speak of 12 months for the minister to reconsider, while GroundUp reads the order as six months to decide and six more to negotiate, so the judgment itself should be read for the precise wording. We could not extract text from the published judgment, which is a scanned document, and the reporting above relies on GroundUp, IOL and Moneyweb accounts of it.
