eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v MultiChoice Proprietary Limited and Another

eMedia Investments, a media group and channel provider, supplied various television channels (the eChannels) to MultiChoice’s DStv platform under a five-year agreement ending on 31 March 2022. During renegotiations, MultiChoice indicated it would only renew rights for ENCA and eNuus, refusing to continue carrying the eChannels, even when offered for free. MultiChoice intended to remove the eChannels from DStv from 1 April 2022. eMedia lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission alleging abuse of dominance under sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(d)(ii) of the Competition Act and sought urgent interim relief from the Competition Tribunal to prevent removal of the channels pending final determination. The Tribunal refused interim relief, finding no prima facie case. eMedia appealed to the Competition Appeal Court.

The appeal was upheld. MultiChoice was interdicted, pending final determination of the complaint, from removing eToonz, eMovies, eMovies Extra, and e.tv Extra from the DStv bouquets on which they previously appeared. MultiChoice was ordered to pay eMedia’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the correct approach to interim relief in abuse of dominance matters under South African competition law. It reinforces that interim relief plays a vital protective role in preventing potential competitive harm while complaints are investigated and must be interpreted in line with the transformative objectives of the Competition Act. The judgment cautions against requiring definitive findings at the interim stage and affirms that dominant firms’ commercial decisions may be restrained where plausible exclusionary effects arise.