About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAGPPHC 162
|
|
Tele Atlas Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Afrigis (Pty) Ltd (14421/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 162; 2011 BIP 341 (GNP) (13 May 2011)
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
PRETORIA)
Case Number: 14421/11
Date: 2011-05-13
TELE
ATLAS AFRICA (PTY)
LTD
......................................................................
First Applicant
MAPSTUDIO,
A DIVISION OF NEW HOLLAND
PUBLISHING
(SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY)
LTD
...................................................
Second
Applicant
and
AFRIGIS
(PTY)
LTD
................................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SOUTHWOOD
J
[1]
In their notice of motion the applicants apply for final,
alternatively, interim interdicts against the respondent in the
following terms:
(1)
An order interdicting the respondent from infringing the applicants'
copyright in and to the Maps and the Digital Maps referred
to in
paragraph 12 of the founding affidavit by -
(i)
reproducing or otherwise copying the Maps and/or Digital Maps or any
portion thereof in any manner or form;
(ii)
making any adaptations of the Maps and/or Digital Maps or any portion
thereof;
(iii)
reproducing any adaptations of the Maps and/or DigitalMaps or any
portion thereof;
(iv)
selling, letting by way of trade, offering or exposing for sale or
hire or distributing reproductions, copies and/or adaptations
of the
aforesaid Maps and/or Digital Maps;
(2)
An order that the respondent cease the use and distribution of all
maps which are copies, reproductions, adaptations, and/or
derivations
of the Maps and/or Digital Maps in whatever manner or form and to
remove and/or destroy all such maps from its database,
alternatively
to deliver such maps to the applicants.
[2]
The first applicant is a South African company which is a leading
provider of digital mapping, navigation and map data solutions.
The
second applicant is New Holland Publishing (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd a
South African company which carries on business under
the name of
Mapstudio as a cartographer, publisher and distributor of printed
street guides, road maps, atlases, tourist maps,
wall maps and
educational products. The second applicant has been wrongly cited as
Mapstudio but the respondent has not taken issue
with this. The
respondent is a South African company which is one of the leading
providers of geographical information system solutions
and
location-based services in Southern Africa.
[3]
The applicants contend that the respondent is infringing their
copyright in respect of certain maps and digital maps. The respondent
denies that the applicants are the owners of the copyright in respect
of the maps and digital maps and that it copied the maps
and digital
maps and asks that the application be dismissed with costs. The
respondent summarises its case as follows;
'16
I am advised that, because it is trite law that copyright is a
technical subject, it is necessary for an applicant to show that
the
works in respect of which protection is sought are eligible for
copyright and that copyright had vested in the works. This
requirement, I am also advised, includes proof that the works relied
upon are indeed "works" as defined in the
Copyright Act,
1978
; that they are original and not copied from any pre-existing
work; that they have been reduced to material form; that they were
created by a qualified person; that the applicant is the owner of the
works; and that there has been an infringement of the works.
In
respect of the latter, I am further advised, it is necessary for the
applicant to show a (qualitatively) substantia! similarity
between
the alleged copyrighted work and the alleged infringing work, and
causality, i.e., actual access to the alleged copyrighted
works by
the alleged infringer and a copying.
17
A perusal of the founding and supporting affidavits relied upon by
the applicants show that the applicants have in no manner
discharged
that onus.'
[4]
At the hearing the applicants' counsel conceded, correctly in my
view, that the applicants' case for interim relief is 'thin'
and did
not argue that such relief should be granted. It is clear that the
applicants have not sought to make out a case for interim
relief as
set out in cases such as Reckitt & Colman South Africa (Pty) Ltd
v SC Johnson & Son (Pty) Ltd
1995 (1) SA 725
(T) at 729I-730G.
[5]
The applicants therefore seek final relief on notice of motion. In
motion proceedings the general rule is that a court can grant
final
relief only if the facts alleged by the applicant and admitted by the
respondent together with the facts alleged by the respondent
justify
the grant of such relief. However, the court may resolve disputes of
fact on essential issues if the denials of fact or
allegations by the
respondent are so clearly untenable that the court can reject them on
the papers -see Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd
v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty)
Ltd
1984 (3) SA 625
(A) at 634E-635C: National Director of Public
Prosecutions v Zuma
[2009] ZASCA 1
;
2009 (2) SA 277
(SCA) para 26. The applicants do
not contend that any of the respondent's denials or allegations of
fact should be rejected and
the case must therefore be decided in
accordance with the general rule.
[6]
In order to grant a final interdict against the respondent the court
must be able to find on the evidence presented that-
(1)
the applicants have established a clear copyright in respect of the
works relied upon;
(2)
the respondent has infringed that right; and
(3)
the absence of similar protection by any other remedy - see Setlogelo
v Setlogelo
1914 AD 221
at 227.
[7]
It is trite that an applicant must make out his case in the founding
affidavit and it is not permissible to make out new grounds
for the
application in the replying affidavit - see Director of Hospital
Services v Mistry
1979 (1) SA 626
(A) at 635F-636B; Titty's Bar and
Bottle Store (Pty) Ltd v ABC Garage & Others
1974 (4) SA 362
(T)
at 369A-B; Herbstein & Van Winsen The Civil Practice of the High
Courts of South Africa 5 ed Vol 1 440-442. The applicants
have
disregarded that rule and included in their replying affidavit new
evidence and invited the respondent to file a further answering
affidavit. Without agreeing to the new evidence being filed the
respondent filed a further answering affidavit to be taken into
account in the event the court was prepared to take the new evidence
into account. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation
for
failing to include the evidence in the founding affidavit I am not
prepared to have regard to the new evidence. The applicants1
counsel
did not advance any argument as to why the court should do so.
[8]
The applicants allege that the maps are derived from (original) maps
created by employees of Map Studio Productions (Pty) Ltd
('MSP') in
1971-1972 and updated and improved by the various companies to whom
copyright in the original maps was assigned. According
to the
applicants the maps in respect of which they own copyright are
'essentially updated and improved versions of the original
maps'.
[9]
The first applicant claims to be the owner of copyright in 'a digital
map database for the sub-Saharan region' but alleges that
it used the
second applicant's maps as source material to create 'digital maps'
which are digital versions of the maps and the
data recorded therein.
The applicants do not attach to their founding affidavit either the
digital map database or the digital
maps or explain in the founding
affidavit what they consist of. The second applicant claims to be the
owner of the copyright in
the following printed maps ('the Maps'):
(a)
Editions 6-9 of the Pretoria Street Guide;
(b)
Editions 9-12 of the Witwatersrand Street Guide;
(c)
Editions 11-12 of the Cape Town Street Guide.
Once
again the applicants do not attach to their founding affidavit the
street guides referred to or explain in the founding affidavit
what
the street guides consist of.
[10]
The applicants seek relief in terms of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978
('the Act') which governs the existence, content and enforcement
of
copyright in South Africa. The Act comprehensively provides for all
aspects of copyright: what works are eligible for copyright
(section
2 read with section 1); who the 'author' in respect of each such work
is (section 1); how copyright is conferred on the
author of each work
(section 3) - in the case of an individual, that at the time of
making the work the author was a South African
citizen or was
domiciled or resident in South Africa and in the case of a juristic
person, it is incorporated under the laws of
the Republic of South
Africa alternatively how copyright is conferred by virtue of being
first published or emitted (in the case
of a program-carrying signal)
in the Republic of South Africa (section 4(1)); that (except for a
broadcast or program-carrying
signal) a work is not eligible for
copyright unless it has been written down, recorded, represented in
digital data or signals
or otherwise reduced to material form
(section 3(2)); that in order to be eligible for copyright a work
must be 'original' (section
2(1)); the nature of the copyright in
respect of each type of work (sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11A and
11B); the exceptions from
protection in respect of the various kinds
of work (sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19Aand 19B); who
qualifies as the
owner of copyright in respect of the eligible works
(section 21); how copyright is assigned and licences are granted
(section 22);
how copyright is infringed (section 23); that
infringements are actionable at the suit of the owner, the exclusive
licensee and
the exclusive sub-licensee of the copyright and what
remedies are available to the owner, licensee and sub-licensee of the
copyright
(sections 24 and 25); a number of procedural matters
regarding infringement proceedings (section 26) and various ancillary
matters
not presently relevant. In view of all these requirements it
has been said that copyright cases are technical and that in
enforcing
any copyright claim it is necessary to establish a
copyright claim in the name of a particular claimant and to determine
whether
or not copyright infringement has taken place - see King v
South African Weather Service
2009 (3) SA 13
(SCA) paras 5-10.
[11]
In the present case, the second applicant alleges that it owns the
copyright in the various editions of the street guides (i.e.
'maps')
while the first applicant alleges that it owns the copyright in the
digital maps which apparently are digital versions
of the maps and
the data recorded therein. The applicants contend that the maps and
map data are literary works - because they
are a compilation 'of an
enormous amount of information1 and artistic works.
[12]
In order to establish a clear right the applicants first had to
identify the maps or digital maps which are alleged to be the
subject
of their copyright (this is of the utmost importance - see King v
South African Weather Service
2009 (3) SA 13
(SCA) para 6) and having
done so the applicants had to establish in respect of each map and
digital map that-
(1)
copyright subsists in the map or digital map: i.e.
(I)
each author reduced it to material form (section 2(2));
(ii)
it is original (section 2(1)) in that it was not copied from other
sources and was the product of the author's or maker's own
labours -
see Topka v Ehrenberg Engineering (Pty) Ltd Judgments on Copyright
(JOC) 74; Waylite Diaries CC v First National Bank
Ltd
1993 (2) SA
128
(W) at 132G-I; Waylite Diaries CC v First National Bank Ltd
[1994] ZASCA 135
;
1995
(1) SA 645
(SCA) at 649F- 650D; Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders
Valve Co Ltd
1987 (2) SA 1
(A) at 22G-23B - or if it was copied, it
was not slavishly copied and, as a result of the author's own skill
and labour, it achieved
originality - Klep Valves supra 22J-23A;
(iii)
each author was a qualified person because, when the map was made,
the author was a South African citizen or was domiciled
or resident
in South Africa (section 3(1)(a))
or
the company in whose service the author was was a company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of South Africa (section
3(1 )(b)) alternatively, the map was first published in South Africa
(section 4(1));
(iv)
each author of the map made the map in the course and scope of his
employment by the employer (section 21(1)(d));
(v)
the author's employer assigned the copyright in the map to a person
who assigned it to the applicant (section 22);
[13]
Having established that they are the owners of copyright in the maps
and digital maps the applicants had to prove that the
respondent
infringed the applicants' copyright in the map or digital map by
reproducing the map or digital map (section 6(a)) (i.e.
made a copy
of a substantial part of the map or digital map (section 1(2A)) or by
making an adaptation of the work (i.e. an adaptation
of a substantial
part of the map (section 1(2A)).
[14]
With regard to copyright infringement by reproduction the court in
Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd
[1997] ZASCA 109
;
1998 (2)
SA 965
(SCA) summarised the relevant principles at 972A-J:
'As
Corbett JA pointed out in Gallago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another v
Erasmus
1989 (1) SA 276
(A) at 280B-D, in order to prove copyright
infringement by reproduction the plaintiff must establish two
distinct things, namely
"...
(i) that there is a sufficient objective similarity between the
alleged infringing work and the original work, or a substantial
part
thereof, for the former to be properly described, not necessarily as
identical with, but as a reproduction or copy of the
latter; and
(ii)
that the original work was the source from which the alleged
infringing work was derived, i.e. that there is a causa! connection
between the original work and the alleged infringing work, the
question to be asked being: has the defendant copied the plaintiff's
work, or is it an independent work of his own?"
It
is upon the first element that I would focus. The existence of prior
subject-matter may render proof of objective similarity
more
difficult for a plaintiff. Burger J said in Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd v
Grapnel (Pty) Ltd and Another
1985 (4) SA 882
(C) at 889C-D:
"Mr.
Puckrin, on behalf of defendants, is correct when he argues that "the
objective similarity" must be judged in
the light of the state
of the art as at the date of the making of the alleged original work.
Thus, although the alleged infringement
and the original work may
bear a dose resemblance, this resemblance may be explained by the
fact that they both incorporate common
prior art."
See
also the remarks of Nicholas J in Laubscher v Vos and Others 3 JOC
(W) at 6, where the learned Judge observed that in the case
of truly
original artistic works a mere comparison usually provides a ready
answer, whereas the answer may not be so readily reached
if the
copyright and the alleged infringing works may have a common source.
The
importance of the plaintiffs identifying those parts of his work
which he alleges have been copied is made clear by Millett
J in a
case where a "Dog-N-Boots" design was alleged to be a
reproduction of a "Puss-N-Boots" design. The case
was
Spectravest inc v Aperknit Ltd
[1988] FSR 161.
The relevant passage
appears at 170:
"Accordingly,
where the reproduction of a substantial part of the plaintiffs' work
is alleged, a sensible approach is first
to identify the part of the
plaintiff's work which is alleged to have been reproduced and to
decide whether it constitutes a substantial
part of the plaintiff's
work. The test is qualitative and not, or not merely, quantitative.
!f it does not, that is the end of
the case. If it does, the next
question is whether that part has been reproduced by the defendant.
Reproduction does not mean exact
replication. A man may use another's
work as an inspiration to make a new work of his own, treating the
same theme in his own manner;
but he is not entitled to steal its
essential features and substance and retain them with minor and
inconsequential alterations.
The question is whether there is such a
degree of similarity between the salient features of the two works
that the one can be
said to be a reproduction of the other. In
considering whether a substantial part of the plaintiff's work has
been reproduced by
the defendant, attention must primarily be
directed to the part which is said to have been reproduced, and not
to those parts which
have not.'"
[15]
With regard to copyright infringement by adaptation the Act contains
extended definitions of the word 'adaptation' in relation
to the
various categories of copyright. The only definition which could be
relevant in the present case is that in relation to
an artistic work:
i.e. adaptation includes a transformation of the work in such a
manner that the original or substantial features
thereof remain
recognisable.
[16]
The applicants' difficulties start with the identification of the
subject of the copyright. The second applicant's main deponent,
Mr.
Grobben, alleges that it is the owner of the copyright In a number of
printed maps and map data relating to sub-Saharan Africa'
which
'qualify as literary works (consisting, at the very least, of a
compilation of an enormous amount of information) and artistic
works'
in terms of the Act. Without explaining further what these printed
maps and map data consist of the second applicant alleges
that it is
the owner of the copyright in editions 6-9 of the Pretoria Street
Guide, editions 9-12 of the Witwatersrand Street Guide
and editions
11-12 of the Cape Town Street Guide (collectively 'the Maps'). In her
supporting affidavit, Ms. Lois O'Brien states
that the second
applicant is the owner of the copyright in the maps 'being the
artistic layout, as artistic works and the map data,
as literary
works'. She does not explain what the concepts 'artistic layout' and
'map data' mean. The first applicant alleges that
it is the owner of
the copyright in a 'digital map database for the sub-Saharan Africa
region' and that it used the (second applicant's)
Maps as source
material for the creation of the Digital Maps which are 'essentially
digital versions of the Maps and the data recorded
therein'. Nowhere
in their affidavits do the applicants explain what a street guide is
or what it consists of and identify which
part of each street guide
is an artistic work and which part is a literary work. The second
applicant has not attached to its affidavits
any of the street guides
referred to and it is therefore not possible to form any idea as to
the precise nature and extent of the
street guides. All that the
applicants attach to their affidavits is six pages each containing a
map of a small defined area (annexures
7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1 and
12.1). Four of these appear to relate to Pretoria, one to Kempton
Park and one to Cape Town. The
applicants do not say from which
edition of the street guides the annexures have been taken. The
relevance of these six pages,
according to the applicants, is that
they contain false information which the applicants contend is to be
found in the respondent's
allegedly offending maps. (In the
respondent's case the word 'map' is used loosely or in an extended
sense as the respondent's
'maps' appear to be aerial photographs with
the names of roads inserted. For present purposes it will be accepted
that the respondent's
allegedly offending works are maps.) The first
applicant does not explain what a 'digital map database' or a
'digital map' is.
The applicants have not annexed a copy of a
'digital map' to the founding affidavit.
[17]
Having identified the maps which are allegedly the subject of their
copyright the applicants proceed to explain how the maps
were
created. None of the maps is a first creation. According to the
applicants the maps are 'derived from maps and map data which
were
originally created between 1971 and 1972 by employees of Map Studio
Productions (Pty) Ltd ('MSP') during the course and scope
of their
employment'. The applicants refer to these maps as the 'Original
Maps'. The applicants do not say what these 'Original
Maps' consisted
of and do not attach copies of these maps to the papers. According to
the applicants, in 1977 MSP assigned the
copyright in the original
maps to Buckley Map Productions (Pty) Ltd which 'updated and
improved' the original maps. The applicants
do not annex copies of
the 'updated and improved' maps and they do not explain what the
updates and improvements consisted of.
According to the applicants,
in April 1986, Buckley Map Productions assigned the copyright in the
original maps in their updated
and improved form to a company then
called Struik Holdings (Pty) Ltd (now New Holland Publishing (South
Africa) (Pty) Ltd). Thereafter,
according to the applicants,
employees of the second applicant further updated and improved the
original maps resulting in the
creation of the maps. It will be
remembered that the applicants have not annexed to their founding
affidavit the 'maps'. The updates
and improvements effected by Struik
Holdings (i.e. the second applicant) included the insertion of small
insignificant errors into
the maps which the applicants refer to as
'copy traps1. The purpose of copy traps is to enable the copyright
owner to identify
more easily any unlawful reproductions by third
parties. Finally, according to the applicants, the company now known
as New Holland
Publishing (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd purported to
assign copyright in the maps to its division Mapstudio.
Mr.
Grobben, the applicants' main deponent who outlines this history has
no personal knowledge of the facts. On the assumption that
the facts
are correct, in the absence of the original maps it is clear that the
court cannot conclude that the maps are literary
or artistic works.
In the absence of the updated and improved original maps it is also
clear that the court cannot conclude that
they differ to such an
extent from the original maps that they are eligible for copyright.
[19]
In order to support his narrative, Mr. Grobben refers to the
supporting affidavit by Ms. O'Brien who describes herself as the
managing director of the second applicant (i.e. a division of the
company called New Holland Publishing (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd).
Ms.
O'Brien states unambiguously that she has never previously created
maps and then purports to confirm that the maps were created
between
2000 and 2003 and are derived from the original maps (maps and map
data) originally created by MSP between 1971 and 1972.
Ms. O'Brien
does not have personal knowledge of how the original maps were
created and she therefore attaches to her affidavit
another affidavit
deposed to by Mr. Ray Wiikinson on 3 August 2000 on behalf of
Mapstudio (Pty) Ltd and Struik New Holland Publishing
(Pty) Ltd in
copyright infringement proceedings against i-Maps (Pty) Ltd. The
admissibility of the evidence in Mr. Wilkinson's
affidavit is
contentious but no acceptable reason for excluding it was suggested
by the respondent.
[20]
Mr. Wilkinson describes in detail how, in 1972, MSP produced and
published a street guide of Cape Town and its surrounding
areas. It
first produced and published large maps of the urban area of Cape
Town and its surrounding areas which were published
in fold-out
format. (It did the same for Johannesburg and Durban). MPS first
produced two large maps depicting different areas
of Cape Town. In
about 1975 MSP produced its first Cape Town and Environs Street Guide
in book form. In order to produce the first
maps MSP had regard to
the prior art in existence at the time: maps supplied by the
municipalities, trigonometrical survey maps
and maps printed by the
Cape Divisional Council. MPS eliminated features such as contours,
servitudes and unused roads, reduced
the scale and used colouring to
differentiate main roads, streets, parks, the sea and nature areas.
MPS also introduced information
of interest: e.g. medical services,
provincial and private hospitals, places of interest, historical
monuments and museums, theatres,
churches and cinemas. MPS combined
the various maps to provide a comprehensive overview of the covered
area. MPS used this unified
map to produce the street guide which is
contained in a book, each page depicting a portion of the unified
map. It was important
to use the right scale to get the right amount
of information onto each page as this would determine the number of
pages in the
guide and the overall printing cost. Mr. Wilkinson
describes in detail the effort and skill involved in creating the
large maps
and obtaining the information to be inserted and then
reducing the information to book form.
[21]
Mr. Wilkinson deals only with the production and publishing of the
Cape Town map. He refers in passing to the maps of Durban,
Witwatersrand and Vaal Triangle but does not provide all the relevant
detail. He does not even refer to Pretoria. The supporting
affidavit
of John Hall, the MPS cartographer involved in the production of the
Cape Town map does not take the matter further.
He merely confirms
what Mr. Wilkinson said in 2000. Ms. O'Brien is aware of this
deficiency but contends that 'the probabilities
are overwhelming that
MPS produced the original maps for other geographical areas in South
Africa in much the same if not identical
manner'. This is clearly not
evidence but supposition. In the absence of evidence! do not consider
that such a finding is justifiable
- see Director of Hospital
Services v Mistry supra at 635F-H. It is significant that Mr. Hall
could have confirmed this to be the
case but did not do so.
[22]
The supporting affidavits therefore do not support Mr. Grobbens'
allegation that MSP created original maps of Pretoria and
the
Witwatersrand and that the second applicant is the owner of the
copyright in respect of such maps. They also do not explain
how the
second applicant could have become the owner of copyright in editions
6-9 of the Pretoria Street Guide and editions 9-12
of the
Witwatersrand Street Guide. The evidence does not show why the street
guides are eligible for copyright as artistic and
literary works.
Accordingly, I find that the applicants have not shown that they own
the copyright in respect of the street guides
and the digital maps.
[23]
Even if it is accepted that the second applicant is the owner of the
copyright in respect of each street guide there are a
number of
obstacles in the way of finding an infringement of that copyright.
[24]
The first is the respondent's denial that it copied the applicants'
works and reproduced or adapted them. The respondent has
described in
detail how it creates its works. The evidence is consistent with the
fact that there is clearly no visual similarity
between the
applicants' maps and the allegedly infringing maps. They are not
co-extensive and they represent the areas concerned
in completely
different ways. The applicants' maps are clearly drawings whereas the
respondent's maps are clearly aerial photographs
with the street
names superimposed. The applicants' copy traps which are heavily
relied upon by the applicants are disputed and
it appears as if most
of the copy traps appear in other works. The respondent's evidence
cannot be rejected and that is the end
of the applicants' case.
[25]
The second is that the applicants have not established which guides
are the subject of the alleged infringement. The applicants
allege
that they have found at least 80 instances where the applicants' copy
traps have been reproduced in the respondent's digital
maps but they
have not revealed them because the nature and positioning of the copy
traps is highly confidential. Accordingly,
to prove
copying/reproduction of their maps the applicants attach only six
pages of their works and those of the respondent but
they have not
identified which of the guides are involved. Without the relevant
guide being identified the court cannot find that
the copyright in
respect of any one guide has been infringed and issue an appropriate
interdict.
[26]
The third is that the substantial part of the relevant guide
allegedly reproduced has not been identified, if the relevant
annexures are pages from a book (as they appear to be) it is not
possible to conclude that they constitute a substantial part of
the
work, if each page is the completed work then it has clearly not been
reproduced or adapted in the respondent's work. There
is no objective
similarity between the works and the respondent's works do not
contain any recognisable features of the applicants'
works.
[27]
As far as infringement of the literary work is concerned the
applicants have not identified the compilation alleged to be present
in each of its maps and the respondent's maps do not contain anything
more than street names which is common place data simply
inserted
along the line indicating the street.
[28]
The applicants have placed great reliance on the reasoning of the
court in Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v Fax Listings CC
1990 (2) SA 164
(D) at 178F-J but it is clear that the reasoning was based on the
facts of the case. The facts of the present case are very different.
[29]
After conceding that the applicants had not made out a case for
interim relief applicants' counsel, in argument, requested
the court
to consider referring the matter to the trial or evidence on
specified issues. This was not supported by any argument
and I am not
persuaded that there is any reason for the court to exercise its
discretion in this way.
[30]
The following order is made:
The
application is dismissed with costs including the costs reserved on
12 April 2011.
B.R.
SOUTHWOOD
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE
NO: 14421/11
HEARD ON: 9 May 2011
FOR
THE APPLICANTS: ADV. R. MICHAU SC
ADV.
I. JOUBERT
INSTRUCTED
BY: Ms. D. van Wyk of Weavind of Weavind
FOR
THE RESPONDENT: ADV. A.J. BESTER SC
INSTRUCTED
BY: Mr. H. Blignaut of Spoor & Fisher
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 13 May 2011