JUDGMENT
018492/26_ 30- 01- 2026 / SvS
2
that allowed the producers to use her image , to portray her ,
and to refer to her on the program me . She clearly regrets
having done so. But she has laid no basis in her founding
papers on which to resile from the release she signed .
On top of that , the courts will almost never grant an
interdict in restraint of broadcast outside clear evidence
that the broadcast will cause unlawful harm to any one of its
subjects or to the public at large. The founding affidavit in
this case does not come close to the allegation that
unlawful harm is going to be caused to the applicant if the
10
broadcast is allowed to proceed.
I have read the founding affidavit that was emailed
to me very carefully, and I appreciate that Ms Magojane
may experience some distress when the broadcast takes
place. I am in no way condoning the programme’s editorial
approach, or saying that the distress Ms. Magojane may
experience is baseless or is in any way ungenuine. The
fact of the matter is, though, that mere distress caused by a
broadcast is not sufficient to enjoin it. A clear, and in this
case a particularly clear, legal right would have to be
20
demonstrated. Ms Magojane has not demonstrated that
right.
In any event, the application has been brought
without notice to the respondents. The first respondent is
Ray Productions Hub Limited, which produced the