HH 29-2007
HC 1786/06
fides of its explanation. See Kasiyamhuru v Minister of Home Affairs & Ors1; Silver‟s Trucks (Pvt)
Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs & Excise2.
In casu, the respondents base their application to file the further affidavits on new matters
allegedly raised in the answering affidavit by the applicant‟s representative. A perusal of the
affidavit in question reveals that the deponent has gone to some length to depose to new matters that
were not in the founding affidavit. The applicant details the history between the parties dating back
to 11 September 2003 when initiated the process to apply for registration. The answering affidavit
also goes into details about the police having occupied its premises and the subsequent applications
made to have the police interdicted from interfering with its operations. The applicant further avers
in the answering affidavit that the police had removed quantities of printing and other equipment
pursuant to a warrant issued by the Provincial Magistrate. All these were matters not contained in the
founding affidavits. It is my view that the applicant has raised new matters in the answering
affidavit. The respondents wish to respond thereto and I cannot see any prejudice to the applicant in
allowing the supplementary affidavits to be filed. The answering affidavit opened up a can of worms
and I believe it only fair for the respondents to be given the opportunity of responding to the
averments contained therein which were not in the founding affidavit. The respondents are therefore
granted leave to file supplementary affidavits.
The application before me is vigorously opposed by both respondents. It is important that the
background to this application be set out chronologically for a proper appreciation and perspective
on the dispute before me and the relief being sought. In 2002 Parliament promulgated the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act [AIPPA] which required that any provider of mass media
services be registered as such with a Commission set up in accordance with the Act. The first
respondent herein, the Commission, is the body set up for that purpose. Regulations3 to facilitate the
registration of such provider were also promulgated after the Act came into force. The applicant did
not seek registration, but instead took up a Constitutional challenge against the Act to the Supreme
Court in 2003. Having been required to bring itself within the law before approaching the court it
then sought registration in terms of section 66 of the Act. The application was dealt with by the
Commission which denied the applicant registration. An appeal was then launched to the
Administrative Court which found in favour of the applicant and set aside the decision of the
Commission. Part of the order granted by the Administrative Court was to the effect that the
applicant was deemed to have been registered for purposes of providing mass media services in

1999 (1)SA 643
1999 (1) ZLR 490
S.I. 169C of 2002


Select target paragraph3