South Africa Case Law

E.Sat (Pty) Limited and Others v Lucken N.O and Others (D7737/2022)

E.Sat (Pty) Limited and Others v Lucken N.O and Others (D7737/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 18; 2024 (2) SACR 377 (KZD) (3 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D7737/2022

Judge

Balton

The court found that the July 2023 ruling was an interlocutory order, issued to address the urgent need to protect witnesses following a shooting incident and to ensure the continuation of the criminal trial. The court held that it has the inherent power to vary or rescind its own interlocutory orders in the interests of justice. The restrictions imposed by the July ruling were limited to a specific thread of evidence and did not amount to a blanket ban on media access. The court determined that the right to freedom of expression and the open justice principle were not infringed, as accredite…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Freedom Of Expression
• Witness Protection
• Interlocutory Orders
• Audi Alteram Partem

South African National Editors Forum v Abbu and Others (Leave to Appeal) (AR131/2021)

South African National Editors Forum v Abbu and Others (Leave to Appeal) (AR131/2021) [2023] ZAKZPHC 163 (6 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR131/2021

Judges

Sibiya, Khan

The High Court upheld SANEF’s appeal, set aside the regional court order, and clarified the correct procedure for media access in Magistrates’ Courts.

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Freedom Of Expression
• Magistrates Commission Guidelines
• Burden Of Proof In Media Applications
• Open-justice

S v Sibiya and Others

S v Sibiya and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 378; CC 67/2020 (18 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC 67/2020

Judge

T A Maumela

The court found that witness number one did not provide sufficient evidence to justify restricting both visual and audio broadcast of her testimony. While her concerns about safety and public scrutiny were acknowledged, she had already participated in public forums and social media, exposing her identity and voice. Previous witnesses were protected from visual broadcast but not audio, and the court saw no reason to treat witness number one differently. The court emphasized the principle of open justice and the public's right to access information, finding that the interests of justice and fai…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Witness Protection
• Fair Trial Rights
• Audio Visual Broadcast
• Constitutional Balancing

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Fields of Green for ALL NPC and Others, Doctors For Life International Incorporated v Fields of Green For All NPC and Others (A641/2017, A133/2018, 2011/58664)

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Fields of Green for ALL NPC and Others, Doctors For Life International Incorporated v Fields of Green For All NPC and Others (A641/2017, A133/2018, 2011/58664) [2019] ZAGPPHC 316; [2019] 3 All SA 866 (GP); 2019 (2) SACR 564 (GP) (11 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A641/2017, A133/2018, 2011/58664

Judges

L R Adams, L M Molopa-Sethosa, J W Louw

The court held that the principle of open justice applies equally to non-traditional media entities and that there is no logical basis to distinguish between conventional media houses and other entities, including those closely associated with litigants, when it comes to broadcasting court proceedings. The procedure followed by the trial court, which relied on extensive correspondence and did not require a formal substantive application or oral argument, was consistent with the Practice Manual and constitutional requirements. The appellants failed to demonstrate any real or substantial prejud…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Fair Trial Rights
• Practice Manual Procedure
• Broadcasting Of Proceedings

South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Director of Public Prosecutions, South Gauteng High Court Johannesburg and Others; InRe: S v Krejcir and Others (16762/2014)

South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Director of Public Prosecutions, South Gauteng High Court Johannesburg and Others; InRe: S v Krejcir and Others (16762/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 241 (12 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16762/2014

Judge

Lamont

The court authorized SABC to record, distribute, and broadcast a criminal trial, but imposed detailed safeguards to protect privacy, security, and confidentiality.

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Broadcasting Of Court Proceedings
• Privacy And Security In Court
• Court Discretion On Media
• Technical Specifications For Recording

South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Thatcher and Others (8924/04)

South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Thatcher and Others (8924/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 63; [2005] 4 All SA 353 (C) (31 August 2005)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8924/04

Judges

Van Zyl, Moosa, Dlodlo

The court held that the applicant's request to televise and record the proceedings was justified by the public interest and the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The matter was of significant national and international importance, and the applicant undertook to comply with all relevant codes and statutory obligations. The court found no legal prohibition against delayed broadcasting and emphasized that the proceedings involved only argument and judgment, not witness testimony, thus minimizing privacy concerns. The court exercised its inherent discretion…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Right To Privacy
• Broadcasting Act
• Judicial Discretion