Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1164 (19 November 2024)

Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1164 (19 November 2024)

The applicants failed to establish a clear right to restrain the broadcast of the footage. The footage was obtained in a public place, concerned business matters of public interest, and did not contain private information beyond what was already publicly available. The court found that the balancing exercise between privacy and freedom of expression, as required by both the Constitution and POPIA, favoured the respondent. Prior restraint is only justified in exceptional circumstances, and the applicants have an alternative remedy in damages for any invasion of privacy. The urgency of the application was justified, but the merits did not support the relief sought.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1164
Parties
Applicant: Gregory John Els; Applicant: Praxley Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Case Number
25902/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants on party and party scale.
Judges
N Manoim
Legal Topics
Interdict, Right to Privacy, Prior Restraint, Freedom of Expression, Journalistic Exclusion, Protection of Personal Information Act
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Interdict Right to Privacy Prior Restraint Freedom of Expression Journalistic Exclusion Protection of Personal Information Act

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory John Els

Applicant

Praxley Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a clear right to prevent the respondent from broadcasting footage of the first applicant taken without his consent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's intended broadcast constitutes an unlawful invasion of privacy under the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the broadcast of the footage.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a clear right to restrain the broadcast of the footage. The footage was obtained in a public place, concerned business matters of public interest, and did not contain private information beyond what was already publicly available. The court found that the balancing exercise between privacy and freedom of expression, as required by both the Constitution and POPIA, favoured the respondent. Prior restraint is only justified in exceptional circumstances, and the applicants have an alternative remedy in damages for any invasion of privacy. The urgency of the application was justified, but the merits did not support the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants on party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  • The application is dismissed.