Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16) [2017] ZACC 17; 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) (8 June 2017)

Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16) [2017] ZACC 17; 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) (8 June 2017)

The majority held that the Minister of Communications acted within her constitutional and statutory powers in amending the Broadcasting Digital Migration Policy, and that the requirements for consultation under section 3(5) of the Electronic Communications Act had been met through previous processes. The policy amendment was not binding on independent authorities, and its exclusion of decryption capabilities from subsidised set top boxes was rationally connected to the legitimate objective of saving public funds. The Court found that e.tv and other stakeholders had ample opportunity to make submissions on the relevant issues, and that the Minister was not required to engage in further...

Citation
[2017] ZACC 17
Parties
Applicant: Electronic Media Network Limited; Applicant: Minister of Communications; Applicant: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited; Respondent: e.tv (Pty) Limited; Respondent: National Association of Manufacturers Of Electronic Components (First Grouping); Respondent: SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition; Respondent: Media Monitoring Africa; Respondent: Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services; Respondent: Independent Communications Authority of South Africa; Respondent: Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa; Respondent: Association of Community Television – SA; Respondent: South African Communications Forum; Respondent: Sentech SOC Limited; Respondent: Cell C (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Telkom SOC Limited; Respondent: Tellumat (Pty) Limited; Respondent: National Association of Manufacturers of Electronic Components (Second Grouping)
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal's order set aside; costs awarded against e.tv, SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, and Media Monitoring Africa.
Judges
Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Broadcasting Policy, Separation of Powers, Consultation Requirements, Rationality Review, Electronic Communications Act, Ministerial Policy Amendment
Constitutional Law Telecoms and Media Administrative Law Broadcasting Policy Separation of Powers Consultation Requirements Rationality Review Electronic Communications Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electronic Media Network Limited

Applicant

Minister of Communications

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited

Applicant

e.tv (Pty) Limited

Respondent

National Association of Manufacturers Of Electronic Components (First Grouping)

Respondent

SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition

Respondent

Media Monitoring Africa

Respondent

Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services

Respondent

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa

Respondent

Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Association of Community Television – SA

Respondent

South African Communications Forum

Respondent

Sentech SOC Limited

Respondent

Cell C (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Telkom SOC Limited

Respondent

Tellumat (Pty) Limited

Respondent

National Association of Manufacturers of Electronic Components (Second Grouping)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Minister of Communications have legal authority to amend the Broadcasting Digital Migration Policy?
  2. 2 Was the Minister required to consult stakeholders under section 3(5) of the Electronic Communications Act before amending the policy?
  3. 3 Was the policy amendment process and its content rational and constitutionally compliant?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Minister of Communications acted within her constitutional and statutory powers in amending the Broadcasting Digital Migration Policy, and that the requirements for consultation under section 3(5) of the Electronic Communications Act had been met through previous processes. The policy amendment was not binding on independent authorities, and its exclusion of decryption capabilities from subsidised set top boxes was rationally connected to the legitimate objective of saving public funds. The Court found that e.tv and other stakeholders had ample opportunity to make submissions on the relevant issues, and that the Minister was not required to engage in further...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal's order set aside; costs awarded against e.tv, SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, and Media Monitoring Africa.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.