Primedia Broadcasting, a Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2749/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 24 (10 March 2015)

Primedia Broadcasting, a Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2749/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 24 (10 March 2015)

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated irreparable harm justifying urgent interim relief, given the limited restriction of public access (approximately 5 minutes during the State of the Nation Address), the five-year operation of the policy, and the imminent expedited hearing of Part B. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interim relief that would alter the status quo. The constitutionality and reasonableness of the policy had not been fully ventilated and would be addressed in the final hearing. The court concluded that, in the absence of irreparable harm and where the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, interim relief should not be granted.

Citation
[2015] ZAWCHC 24
Parties
Applicant: Primedia Broadcasting, a division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: South African National Editors’ Forum; Applicant: Right2Know Campaign; Applicant: Open Democracy Advice Centre; Applicant: Media 24 Ltd; Respondent: Speaker of the National Assembly; Respondent: Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Respondent: Secretary of Parliament; Respondent: Minister of State Security
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Case Number
2749/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief (part A) Pending Final Relief (part B)
Outcome
Application for interim relief (Part A) dismissed; each party to bear its own costs; Part B postponed for expedited hearing.
Judges
Baartman, Rogers, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Open and Transparent Government, Interim Interdict, Separation of Powers, Broadcasting Policy, Parliamentary Proceedings
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Open and Transparent Government Interim Interdict Separation of Powers Broadcasting Policy Parliamentary Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Primedia Broadcasting, a division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African National Editors’ Forum

Applicant

Right2Know Campaign

Applicant

Open Democracy Advice Centre

Applicant

Media 24 Ltd

Applicant

Speaker of the National Assembly

Respondent

Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces

Respondent

Secretary of Parliament

Respondent

Minister of State Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief (part A) Pending Final Relief (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Broadcasting Policy of Parliament restricting visual feed during grave disturbances or unparliamentary behaviour is reasonable and constitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief compelling Parliament to alter its broadcasting policy pending final determination.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable harm justify urgent interim intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated irreparable harm justifying urgent interim relief, given the limited restriction of public access (approximately 5 minutes during the State of the Nation Address), the five-year operation of the policy, and the imminent expedited hearing of Part B. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interim relief that would alter the status quo. The constitutionality and reasonableness of the policy had not been fully ventilated and would be addressed in the final hearing. The court concluded that, in the absence of irreparable harm and where the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, interim relief should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief (Part A) dismissed; each party to bear its own costs; Part B postponed for expedited hearing.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief in terms of Part A is dismissed.
  • Each party is directed to bear its own costs in respect of the application for interim relief.