Makhanya v Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd (24088/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 156; 2010 (3) SA 79 (GNP) (14 October 2009)

Makhanya v Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd (24088/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 156; 2010 (3) SA 79 (GNP) (14 October 2009)

The court found that the applicant's right to privacy was being infringed by persistent, anonymous telephone harassment. The respondent possessed the information necessary to identify the perpetrator but refused to disclose it absent a court order. The Promotion of Access to Information Act provides a statutory basis for compelling disclosure where necessary to protect rights. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the information to protect his privacy and granted the order as requested, compelling the respondent to provide the relevant telephone numbers. No costs order was made.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 156
Parties
Applicant: Floyd Muzimuhle Makhanya; Respondent: Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Case Number
24088/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to provide the requested information.
Judges
E Bertelsmann
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Promotion of Access to Information Act, Interdict, Unlawful Intrusion
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right to Privacy Promotion of Access to Information Act Interdict Unlawful Intrusion

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Floyd Muzimuhle Makhanya

Applicant

Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain from the respondent the identity of the telephone pest harassing him.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is legally obliged to disclose the relevant telephone numbers to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's right to privacy justifies the granting of an interdict and access to information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's right to privacy was being infringed by persistent, anonymous telephone harassment. The respondent possessed the information necessary to identify the perpetrator but refused to disclose it absent a court order. The Promotion of Access to Information Act provides a statutory basis for compelling disclosure where necessary to protect rights. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the information to protect his privacy and granted the order as requested, compelling the respondent to provide the relevant telephone numbers. No costs order was made.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to provide the requested information.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to supply the applicant with the relevant telephone numbers used to harass the applicant as requested in the application.
  • No order as to costs.