JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v E Media Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/150153) [2025] ZAGPJHC 58 (28 January 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 58
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2024/150153
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2024/150153
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, as they waited over two months after the programme was aired before launching the application. The delay undermined any claim to urgency, and the matter did not warrant urgent relief. The application was accordingly struck off the roll. The issue of costs, including punitive costs and costs against the applicants' attorney, was reserved for later determination.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll; costs reserved.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved for later determination.
02
Material facts
Parties
JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv MD JohnTyrone Chetty
Applicant Counsel: Adv MD JohnE Media Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv B WinksDevi Sankaree-Govender
Respondent Counsel: Adv B WinksThe Hawks
RespondentThe Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID)
RespondentAgent 9 - Alleged Ethical Hacker
RespondentMRVW - Alleged Ethical Hacker
RespondentGoogle South Africa (Pty) Ltd
RespondentGoogle Incorporated
RespondentYouTube LLC
RespondentThe Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA)
Respondent Counsel: Adv J Schoeman03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Out and Costs
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for urgent relief to remove allegedly defamatory content from social media platforms is justified.
- 02
Whether the applicants have established genuine urgency or whether the urgency is self-created.
- 03
Whether punitive costs should be awarded against the applicants or their attorney.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the programme aired by the first and second respondents defames them by accusing them of being scammers, whereas they assist victims of fraud. They argue that the continued presence of the programme on social media platforms causes ongoing harm to their reputation and that urgent relief is necessary to prevent further damage.
- Respondent
- The first and second respondents argue that the application lacks urgency, as the programme was aired on 27 October 2024 and the application was only launched on 30 December 2024. They assert that any urgency is self-created and that the applicants have delayed unreasonably. They seek punitive costs and costs against the applicants' attorney personally.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (t/a Makin's Furniture Manufacturers) 1977 (4) SA 135 (W)
Urgency in motion proceedings must be genuine and not self-created; applicants must act promptly when seeking urgent relief.
- 02
Johannesburg City Council v Television & Electrical Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others 1997 (1) SA 157 (A)
Punitive costs may be awarded where a party acts unreasonably or abuses the process of court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, as they waited over two months after the programme was aired before launching the application. The delay undermined any claim to urgency, and the matter did not warrant urgent relief. The application was accordingly struck off the roll. The issue of costs, including punitive costs and costs against the applicants' attorney, was reserved for later determination.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must act swiftly when seeking urgent relief, especially in matters involving reputational harm.
- Delays in launching urgent applications may result in the court refusing to entertain the matter on an urgent basis.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll; costs reserved.
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved for later determination.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024/150153
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
28 January 2025
WRIGHT J
JL UNIQUE SOLUTIONS (PTY)
LTD
First Applicant
(Registration Number: 2022/387458/07)
TYRONE
CHETTY
Second Applicant
(Identity Number: 8[…])
and
E MEDIA INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
First Respondent
DEVI SANKAREE-GOVENDER
Second Respondent
THE
HAWKS
Third Respondent
THE
INDEPENDENT POLICE INVESTIGATION Fourth Respondent
DIRECTORATE (IPID)
AGENT 9 - ALLEGED ETHICAL HACKER Fifth Respondent
MRVW - ALLEGED ETHICAL HACKER
Sixth Respondent
GOOGLE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Seventh Respondent
INCORPORATED
Eighth Respondent
YOUTUBE
LLC
Ninth Respondent
THE BROADCASTING
COMPLAINTS
Tenth Respondent
COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA (BCCSA)
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The 1st applicant company and the 2nd applicant man who is the moving force behind the first applicant seek urgently, in effect, an order that the 1st and 2nd respondents, EMedia and the Ms Sankaree -Govender remove certain allegations from all their social platforms. Related relief is sought.
2. The applicants say that they are defamed in the programme. They say that they assist persons who have been defrauded by scamming. They say that the programme aired defames them as it accuses them of being the scammers themselves.
3. The programme was first aired as long ago as 27 October 2024. The present application was served on 30 December 2024.
4. On 7 January 2025, the attorney for 1st and 2nd respondents wrote to the applicants’ attorney inviting the latter to withdraw the application as “ the horse had bolted” and that the applicants’ had waited over two months before launching the application.
5. On 8 January 2025, the applicants’ attorney had replied saying that the matter was urgent.
6. On 14 January 2025, the attorney for the 1st and 2nd applicants sent a fresh invitation to the applicants’ attorney along similar lines to the letter of 7 January 2025.
7. In my view, any urgency is self created.
8. Costs are sought on a punitive scale by some of the respondents and personally against the applicants’ attorney by 1st and 2nd respondents.
ORDER
1. Struck off.
2. Costs reserved. -
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 28 January 2025
DELIVERED : 28 January 2025
APPEARANCES :
Applicant Adv MD John
083 457 7112
advkohn@gmail.com
Instructed by Judy Wilkins Attorneys
082 555 2283
judy@wilkinsattorneys.co.za
1st & 2nd Respondents
Adv B Winks
ben@benwinks.com
Instructed by Rosengarten & Feinberg – Daniel Baschkin
011 486 0242
danielb@rf-law.co.za
Tenth Respondent
Adv J Schoeman
082 336 4089
juan@rsabar.com
Instructed by Barnard Attorneys – A Lotter
083 324 9340
anneke@barnardinc.co.za
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.