eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22) [2022] ZACT 106; [2023] 1 CPLR 12 (CT) (19 December 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZACT 106
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mazwai, A Ndoni, L Mncube
- Case number
- IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mazwai, A Ndoni, L Mncube
- Case number
- IR194Mar22; EXT151Nov22
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited
ApplicantMultichoice Proprietary Limited
RespondentThe Competition Commission
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Extension Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the interim relief order preventing the removal of the applicant's channels from DStv bouquets should be extended.
- 02
Whether the extension is justified pending the outcome of the complaint hearing or for a further period of six months.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the interim relief order should be extended to prevent irreparable harm to its business interests and to maintain the status quo until the complaint is fully adjudicated. The applicant submitted that the removal of its channels from the DStv bouquets would negatively impact its viewership and commercial viability.
- Respondent
- The first respondent agreed to the extension of the interim relief order as proposed by the applicant. No substantive opposition was raised to the extension, and the second respondent did not oppose the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, 89 of 1998
Interim relief may be extended where the parties agree and the Tribunal is satisfied that the extension is necessary to preserve the status quo pending final determination of the complaint.
- 02
CAC CASE NO:201/CAC/JUN22
The Tribunal may grant an extension of an interim order where it is just and equitable to do so, considering the interests of all parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted the cooperative approach of the parties in agreeing to the extension, which facilitated the efficient resolution of interim relief matters.
- No order as to costs was made, reflecting the absence of opposition and the consensual nature of the application.
Court disposition
Interim relief order extended; channels to remain on DStv bouquets pending complaint hearing or for six months.
- 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.
Source and reliance status
Competition Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Competition Tribunal
Order
IN THE COMPETITION
TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22
In the matter between:
EMEDIA
INVESTMENTS
PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant
and
MULTICHOICE
PROPRIETARY LIMITED First Respondent
THE
COMPETITION COMMISSION Second Respondent
Panel: M Mazwai (Presiding Member) A Ndoni (Tribunal Member) L Mncube (Tribunal Member) Heard on: 15 December 2022 Order Issued on: 19 December 2022
ORDER
HAVING considered the extension application agreed to by the applicant and the first respondent and the interim relief order granted by the Competition Appeal Court handed down on 1 August 2022 under case number CAC CASE NO:201/CAC/JUN22, the Tribunal orders that:
1. The first respondent is interdicted from removing four of the applicant’s channels (namely E.tv Extra, eToonz, eMovies and eMovies Extra) from the DStv bouquets of which they currently form part, be extended for a further period pending (1) the conclusion of the hearing into the complaint initiated by the applicant; or (2) a further period of 6 months, whichever occurs first.
2. No order as to costs.
Date: 19 December 2022
Presiding Member Ms Mondo Mazwai
Concurring: Professor Liberty Mncube and Ms Andiswa Ndoni
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.