JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v E Media Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/150153) [2025] ZAGPJHC 58 (28 January 2025)

JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v E Media Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/150153) [2025] ZAGPJHC 58 (28 January 2025)

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.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 58
Parties
Applicant: JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Tyrone Chetty; Respondent: E Media Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Devi Sankaree-Govender; Respondent: The Hawks; Respondent: The Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID); Respondent: Agent 9 - Alleged Ethical Hacker; Respondent: MRVW - Alleged Ethical Hacker; Respondent: Google South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Google Incorporated; Respondent: YouTube LLC; Respondent: The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Case Number
2024/150153
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Out and Costs
Outcome
Application struck off the roll; costs reserved.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Defamation, Urgent Interdict, Social Media Content Removal, Punitive Costs, Self Created Urgency
Civil Procedure Telecoms and Media Defamation Urgent Interdict Social Media Content Removal Punitive Costs Self Created Urgency

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JL Unique Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Tyrone Chetty

Applicant

E Media Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Devi Sankaree-Govender

Respondent

The Hawks

Respondent

The Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID)

Respondent

Agent 9 - Alleged Ethical Hacker

Respondent

MRVW - Alleged Ethical Hacker

Respondent

Google South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Google Incorporated

Respondent

YouTube LLC

Respondent

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Out and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent relief to remove allegedly defamatory content from social media platforms is justified.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established genuine urgency or whether the urgency is self-created.
  3. 3 Whether punitive costs should be awarded against the applicants or their attorney.

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.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll.
  • Costs are reserved for later determination.