eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd v Multichoice (Pty) Ltd and Others

Multichoice operates the DStv subscription television platform. eMedia supplied various television channels to Multichoice under a Commercial Master Channel Agreement from 2007, renewed in 2017 for a five-year period ending 31 March 2022. During renewal negotiations, Multichoice agreed only to continue broadcasting eNCA and the eNews bulletin and declined to continue broadcasting eMedia’s other entertainment channels (the eChannels). eMedia lodged a complaint alleging abuse of dominance under sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(d)(ii) of the Competition Act and sought interim relief under section 49C to prevent removal of the eChannels. After initial refusal by the Competition Tribunal, the Competition Appeal Court granted interim relief in August 2022. The interim relief was extended by agreement until January 2023. Following a non-referral by the Competition Commission in June 2023 and Multichoice’s refusal to agree to a further extension, eMedia approached the Competition Appeal Court urgently, challenging the interpretation and constitutionality of section 49C(5), which was said to limit interim relief to a maximum of twelve months.

The Court declared that the words 'a further period' in section 49C(5) do not limit the Competition Tribunal to granting only one extension of interim relief. It directed the Tribunal to determine eMedia’s application for a further extension in accordance with the proper interpretation of section 49C(5). Pending that determination, Multichoice was interdicted from removing the specified eMedia channels from the DStv platform. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 49C(5) of the Competition Act and rejects the prevailing view that interim relief is capped at twelve months. It strengthens access to effective interim remedies in competition disputes, affirms constitutionally compliant statutory interpretation, and confirms the Competition Appeal Court’s jurisdiction to determine constitutional matters as a court of first instance.