Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 903 (30 August 2024)

Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 903 (30 August 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant hearing the matter on the urgent roll. While the applicants alleged ongoing constitutional violations by the SABC, the court held that the urgency was not adequately substantiated, particularly given the applicants' own indication...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 903
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma; Applicant: Umkhonto Wesizwe Party; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Board of the SABC; Respondent: The Group CEO: SABC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2024
Case Number
077748/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent roll for want of urgency; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Media Freedom, Public Broadcasting Obligations, Urgent Interdict, Review Under Paja, Rule 16a Notice, Just and Equitable Relief
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Telecoms and Media Media Freedom Public Broadcasting Obligations Urgent Interdict Review Under Paja Rule 16a Notice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Applicant

Umkhonto Wesizwe Party

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Board of the SABC

Respondent

The Group CEO: SABC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SABC's use of the term 'Government of National Unity' or 'GNU' to describe the coalition government is unconstitutional and invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the SABC's refusal to refrain from using the term constitutes a reviewable administrative action under PAJA or is otherwise unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be heard on an urgent basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant hearing the matter on the urgent roll. While the applicants alleged ongoing constitutional violations by the SABC, the court held that the urgency was not adequately substantiated, particularly given the applicants' own indication that the matter was of such importance as to merit a special allocation to a Full Court. The court also noted procedural shortcomings, including the absence of a Rule 16A notice, which is necessary for constitutional matters potentially affecting third parties. The SABC's delays and lack of adherence to prescribed time limits were criticized, but did not alter the outcome. The...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent roll for want of urgency; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are directed to file a notice in terms of Rule 16A.