Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Appeal Court

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Others (248/CAC/Jul23 CT; IR194Mar22) [2023] ZACAC 3 (28 July 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the words 'a further period' in section 49C(5) of the Competition Act do not restrict the Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief. The Tribunal retains the power to grant multiple extensions if justified by the circumstances and the requirements of the Act. The court directed the Tribunal to determine eMedia's application for a further extension on the papers filed before the Appeal Court, provided the application is filed by the specified deadline. Pending the Tribunal's determination, MultiChoice is ordered to maintain the status quo and is interdicted from removing the specified channels from the DStv platform. The Tribunal's previous order is extended subject to compliance with the filing obligations and until the earlier of the Tribunal's determination, the conclusion of the hearing into the alleged prohibited practice, or a further period not exceeding six months.

Court disposition

Application granted. Declaration made regarding interpretation of section 49C(5). Tribunal directed to determine extension application. Status quo maintained pending determination. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that section 49C(5) does not limit the Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief.
  • The Tribunal is directed to determine eMedia's application for a further extension on the papers filed before the Appeal Court, provided the application is filed by 16h00 on 31 July 2023.
  • Pending the Tribunal's determination, MultiChoice is directed to maintain the status quo and is interdicted from removing eExtra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra from the DStv platform.
  • Subject to compliance with filing obligations, the Tribunal order of 19 December 2022 (IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22) is extended until the earlier of the Tribunal's determination, the conclusion of the hearing, or a further period not exceeding six months.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited

Applicant Counsel: G. Marriot

Multichoice Proprietary Limited

Respondent Counsel: W. Trengrove SC

Competition Commission

Respondent

Minister of Trade and Industry and Competition

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Court Order Following Urgent Application for Extension of Interim Relief.

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that section 49C(5) of the Competition Act does not restrict the Tribunal to a single extension of interim relief. eMedia contended that the words 'a further period' should be interpreted to allow multiple extensions if circumstances warrant. The applicant sought an order directing the Tribunal to consider its application for a further extension and to maintain the status quo regarding the relevant channels on the DStv platform.
Respondent
The first respondent, MultiChoice, argued that section 49C(5) should be interpreted restrictively, limiting the Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief. MultiChoice opposed the maintenance of the status quo and the continued inclusion of the specified channels on the DStv platform, asserting that the interim relief should lapse unless the statutory requirements for extension are strictly met.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, section 49C(5)

    Statutory interpretation must give effect to the purpose of the legislation and the context of the provision.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, section 49C

    Interim relief may be extended by the Tribunal if circumstances justify such extension and the statutory requirements are satisfied.

  3. 03

    Competition Act; Tribunal order IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22

    The status quo may be maintained by court order pending the determination of an application for extension of interim relief.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the words 'a further period' in section 49C(5) of the Competition Act do not restrict the Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief. The Tribunal retains the power to grant multiple extensions if justified by the circumstances and the requirements of the Act. The court directed the Tribunal to determine eMedia's application for a further extension on the papers filed before the Appeal Court, provided the application is filed by the specified deadline. Pending the Tribunal's determination, MultiChoice is ordered to maintain the status quo and is interdicted from removing the specified channels from the DStv platform. The Tribunal's previous order is extended subject to compliance with the filing obligations and until the earlier of the Tribunal's determination, the conclusion of the hearing into the alleged prohibited practice, or a further period not exceeding six months.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that the interpretation of statutory provisions should be guided by the purpose and context of the legislation, particularly where interim relief is concerned.
  • The maintenance of the status quo is a necessary safeguard to prevent irreparable harm pending the determination of the extension application.

Court disposition

Application granted. Declaration made regarding interpretation of section 49C(5). Tribunal directed to determine extension application. Status quo maintained pending determination. No order as to costs.

  • It is declared that section 49C(5) does not limit the Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief.
  • The Tribunal is directed to determine eMedia's application for a further extension on the papers filed before the Appeal Court, provided the application is filed by 16h00 on 31 July 2023.
  • Pending the Tribunal's determination, MultiChoice is directed to maintain the status quo and is interdicted from removing eExtra, eToonz, eMovies, and eMovies Extra from the DStv platform.
  • Subject to compliance with filing obligations, the Tribunal order of 19 December 2022 (IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22) is extended until the earlier of the Tribunal's determination, the conclusion of the hearing, or a further period not exceeding six months.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Competition Appeal Court

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.

Source document

Competition Appeal Court

Order

[2023] ZACAC 3

IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL

COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

CAC CASE NO: 248/CAC/Jul23 CT

CASE NO.: IR194Mar22

In the matter between:

eMEDIA INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant

and

MULTICHOICE PROPRIETARY LIMITED First Respondent

COMPETITION COMMISSION Second Respondent

MINISTER

OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY AND

COMPETITION Third Respondent

MINISTER

OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES Fourth Respondent

COURT ORDER

Having heard counsel for the parties, the following is ordered:

1. It is declared that the words “a further period” in section 49C(5) of the Competition Act do not limit the power of the Competition Tribunal to granting only one extension to the interim relief granted under section 49C of the Competition Act;

2. The Competition Tribunal is directed to determine the Applicant’s (“eMedia’s”) application for a further extension of its interim relief in accordance with section 49C(5) on the papers filed before this Court; provided that the Applicant files its application with the Tribunal by no later than 16h00 on 31 July 2023; and

3. Pending the finalisation of the Competition Tribunal’s determination of eMedia’s application for a further extension of its interim relief, the First Respondent (“MultiChoice”) is directed to maintain the status quo, and is interdicted from removing the following channels from the bouquet of channels on the DStv platform of which they currently form part:

3.1. eExtra;

3.2. eToonz;

3.3. eMovies; and

3.4. eMovies Extra.

4. Subject to the Applicant complying with its filing obligations in terms of paragraph 2, the Tribunal order granted on 19 December 2022, under case number IR194Mar22/EXT151Nov22, is extended until the earlier of:

4.1. the finalisation of the Competition Tribunal’s determination of the application,

4.2. the conclusion of the hearing into the alleged prohibited practice; or

4.3. a further period not exceeding six months.

5. There is no order as to costs.

N.

MANOIM JUDGE PRESIDENT COMPETITION APPEAL COURT

D.

DAVIS ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL COMPETITION APPEAL COURT

V.

NKOSI ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL COMPETITION APPEAL COURT

DATE: 2023-07-28

APPEARANCES:

Date of hearing: 28 July 2023

Date of order: 28 July 2023

Counsel for Applicant: Adv G. Marriot

Assisted By: Adv

N. Ferreira, S Pudifin Jones,

C. Kruyer and S. Nelani

Instructed by: Nortons

Inc.

Counsel for First Respondent: Adv W.Trengrove SC

Assisted By: Adv

M. Norton, Adv J. Wilson SC,

Adv M. Mbikiwa’, Adv Ntlakana

Instructed by: Webber

Wentzel

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition Act, section 49C(5)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Competition Act, section 49C

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.