Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22/EXT035May24) [2024] ZACT 23 (14 June 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZACT 23
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mondo, L Mncube, G Budlender
- Case number
- IR194Mar22/EXT035May24
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mondo, L Mncube, G Budlender
- Case number
- IR194Mar22/EXT035May24
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that, by agreement between the applicant and the first respondent, and without any admission of entitlement to final relief, the interim order preventing the removal of the applicant's four channels from the DStv platform should be extended. The extension is granted to ensure that the status quo is maintained pending the final determination of the complaint referral or for a period not exceeding six months from the date of the order, whichever occurs first. The Tribunal considered the procedural history of previous extensions and the absence of opposition to the current application. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
Interim relief order extended for a further period, pending final determination of the complaint referral or for six months, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The interim order preventing the removal of the applicant's channels (eExtra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra) from the DStv platform is extended for a further period not exceeding the earlier of the date of the Tribunal's order on the complaint referral or six months from the date of this order.
- 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 / Application for Extension of Interim Relief Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the interim relief order preventing the removal of the applicant's channels from the DStv platform should be further extended.
- 02
What is the appropriate duration for the extension of the interim order pending the final determination of the complaint referral.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought an extension of the interim relief order to prevent the first respondent from removing its four channels (eExtra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra) from the DStv platform, arguing that such removal would cause irreparable harm and prejudice its position pending the final determination of its complaint referral before the Tribunal.
- Respondent
- The first respondent agreed to the extension of the interim order without admitting that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the main application. The extension was granted by agreement, and no substantive opposition was recorded for this application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Tribunal Practice
Interim relief may be extended by agreement between the parties, provided that no admission is made regarding entitlement to final relief.
- 02
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
The Tribunal may grant or extend interim relief to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of a complaint referral.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that, by agreement between the applicant and the first respondent, and without any admission of entitlement to final relief, the interim order preventing the removal of the applicant's four channels from the DStv platform should be extended. The extension is granted to ensure that the status quo is maintained pending the final determination of the complaint referral or for a period not exceeding six months from the date of the order, whichever occurs first. The Tribunal considered the procedural history of previous extensions and the absence of opposition to the current application. No order as to costs was made.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal notes that the extension of interim relief is a procedural measure and does not constitute a determination of the merits of the underlying complaint referral.
- The agreement between the parties to extend the interim order does not amount to an admission by the first respondent regarding the applicant's entitlement to relief.
Court disposition
Interim relief order extended for a further period, pending final determination of the complaint referral or for six months, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs.
- The interim order preventing the removal of the applicant's channels (eExtra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra) from the DStv platform is extended for a further period not exceeding the earlier of the date of the Tribunal's order on the complaint referral or six months from the date of this order.
- 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
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF
SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: IR194Mar22/EXT035May24
In the matter between:
EMEDIA
INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant and
MULTICHOICE
PROPRIETARY LIMITED First Respondent
THE
COMPETITION COMMISSION Second Respondent
Panel:
Ms M Mondo (Presiding Member)
Prof. L Mncube (Tribunal Member)
Adv G Budlender SC (Tribunal Member)
Heard on: 14 June 2024
Order Issued on: 14 June 2024
ORDER
Having considered the application for the extension of the interim relief order granted by the Competition Appeal Court on 01 August 2022 under Case No: 201/CAC/JUN22, extended by the Competition Tribunal under Case No: IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22 on 31 January 2023, and further extended by the Competition Tribunal on 18 December 2023 under Case No:IR194Mar22/EXT061JUL23, and by agreement between the applicant and the first respondent, without any admission by the first respondent that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the application instituted by the applicant under the above case number on 28 May 2024, the Competition Tribunal orders as follows:
1. The interim order granted by the Competition Tribunal with effect from 18 December 2023, in terms of which the first respondent is interdicted from removing four of the applicant's channels (namely eExtra, eToonz, eMovies and eMovies Extra) from the bouquets of channels on the DStv platform of which they currently form part, is extended for a further period not exceeding the earlier of:
1.1. The date of the conclusion of the hearing of eMedia's Complaint referral, being the date on which the Tribunal's order is handed down; or
1.2. The date that is 6 months after the date of issue of this order.
2. No order as to costs.
Presiding Member
14 June 2024
Ms Mondo Mazwai
Date
Concurring: Professor Liberty Mncube and Advocate Geoff Budlender SC
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.