South Africa Case Law

BEMAWU and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others; Solidarity and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (J1592/16; J1343/16)

BEMAWU and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others; Solidarity and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (J1592/16; J1343/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 341; [2017] 12 BLLR 1237 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 241 (LC) (15 September 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1592/16; J1343/16

Judge

Gush

The Labour Court held that costs should be paid jointly and severally by the SABC and two officials after unlawful policy and dismissal conduct.

• Costs Award
• Personal Liability Of Officials
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Broadcasting Policy
• Constitutional Rights

Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16)

Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16) [2017] ZACC 17; 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) (8 June 2017)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT140/16; CCT141/16; CCT145/16

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo

The majority held that the Minister of Communications acted within her constitutional and statutory powers in amending the Broadcasting Digital Migration Policy, and that the requirements for consultation under section 3(5) of the Electronic Communications Act had been met through previous processes. The policy amendment was not binding on independent authorities, and its exclusion of decryption capabilities from subsidised set top boxes was rationally connected to the legitimate objective of saving public funds. The Court found that e.tv and other stakeholders had ample opportunity to make s…

Source excerpt

• Broadcasting Policy
• Separation Of Powers
• Consultation Requirements
• Rationality Review
• Electronic Communications Act
• Ministerial Policy Amendment

Primedia Broadcasting (a division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd) and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (784/2015)

Primedia Broadcasting (a division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd) and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (784/2015) [2016] ZASCA 142; [2016] 4 All SA 793 (SCA); 2017 (1) SA 572 (SCA) (29 September 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

784/2015

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Tshiqi, Swain, Zondi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Parliament's broadcasting policy and rules, which restrict the televising of disorder and focus the broadcast on the presiding officer during incidents of grave disorder or unparliamentary behaviour, are unconstitutional and unlawful. These measures violate the public's right to an open Parliament, as guaranteed by sections 59 and 72 of the Constitution, and undermine the principles of transparency, accountability, and public participation. The court found that the justifications advanced by Parliament for these limitations—protecting dignity, restricting…

Source excerpt

• Open Parliament
• Broadcasting Policy
• Freedom Of Expression
• Powers Privileges And Immunities Act
• Signal Jamming
• Reasonableness Of Limitations

Primedia Broadcasting, a Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2749/2015)

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)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2749/2015

Judges

Baartman, Rogers, Dolamo

The court dismissed urgent interim relief challenging Parliament’s broadcasting policy during disorder, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the status quo.

• Open And Transparent Government
• Interim Interdict
• Separation Of Powers
• Broadcasting Policy
• Parliamentary Proceedings
• Interim-interdict