eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22) [2022] ZACT 106; [2023] 1 CPLR 12 (CT) (19 December 2022)

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22) [2022] ZACT 106; [2023] 1 CPLR 12 (CT) (19 December 2022)

The Tribunal found that the extension of the interim relief order was justified and necessary to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of the complaint initiated by the applicant. The extension was agreed to by both the applicant and the first respondent, and there was no opposition from the second...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZACT 106
Parties
Applicant: eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Multichoice Proprietary Limited; Respondent: The Competition Commission
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Extension Order
Outcome
Interim relief order extended; channels to remain on DStv bouquets pending complaint hearing or for six months.
Judges
M Mazwai, A Ndoni, L Mncube
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Channel Removal, Bouquet Composition, Extension of Order
Competition Law Interim Relief Channel Removal Bouquet Composition Extension of Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Multichoice Proprietary Limited

Respondent

The Competition Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Extension Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim relief order preventing the removal of the applicant's channels from DStv bouquets should be extended.
  2. 2 Whether the extension is justified pending the outcome of the complaint hearing or for a further period of six months.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the extension of the interim relief order was justified and necessary to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of the complaint initiated by the applicant. The extension was agreed to by both the applicant and the first respondent, and there was no opposition from the second respondent. The Tribunal considered the potential harm to the applicant if the channels were removed and determined that the extension would prevent prejudice and allow for a fair hearing of the complaint. The order was granted for a further period pending the conclusion of the complaint hearing or for six months, whichever occurs first.

Court Disposition

Interim relief order extended; channels to remain on DStv bouquets pending complaint hearing or for six months.

Orders

  • The first respondent is interdicted from removing four of the applicant’s channels (E.tv Extra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra) from the DStv bouquets of which they currently form part, for a further period pending the conclusion of the complaint hearing or for six months, whichever occurs first.
  • No order as to costs.