MultiChoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd v Calvin Electronics t/a Batavia Trading and Another

MultiChoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd concluded an agency agreement (2015) and an accredited installers agreement (2016) with Calvin Electronics t/a Batavia Trading and its principal. Both agreements entitled MultiChoice, in its sole discretion and for any reason, to terminate on notice. In September and October 2019 MultiChoice terminated the agreements, cutting off Calvin’s access to its IT systems. Calvin launched multiple urgent applications, ultimately obtaining an interim interdict from the Limpopo High Court (Makgoba JP) restoring access to the systems pending a purported ‘review’ of the termination decisions. After restoring access, MultiChoice discovered extensive fraud by Calvin and its employees causing losses of about R2.25 million, and in December 2019 issued fresh termination notices based on these new facts. Calvin alleged that deactivation of access pursuant to the December terminations constituted contempt of the Makgoba JP order. Phatudi J held MultiChoice in contempt, and Tshidada AJ ordered execution of the contempt order under s 18 of the Superior Courts Act. MultiChoice appealed both orders to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Both appeals were upheld. The contempt order and the s 18 execution order of the High Court were set aside and replaced with orders dismissing the applications with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms that the termination of a contract between private parties is not administrative action and is not reviewable under PAJA or the principle of legality. It underscores the limits of interim interdicts that interfere with agreed contractual rights, clarifies the strict requirements for civil contempt, and provides authoritative guidance on the proper application of s 18 of the Superior Courts Act. It also illustrates the SCA’s willingness to mark abuse of court process with punitive costs.