About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAKZDHC 22
|
|
Misier Clothing Worker Primary Co-Operative Limited and Another v Pillay and Others (4724/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 22 (16 March 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
CASE
NO 4724/2014
In the
matter between:
MISIER
CLOTHING WORKER PRIMARY
CO-OPERATIVE
LIMITED
........................................................................................
First
Applicant
SALT
LAKE CLOTHING
CC
.................................................................................
Second
Applicant
and
LEANDREN
PILLAY
.................................................................................................
First
Respondent
LESLEY
CHRISTY
................................................................................................
Second
Respondent
KUMARI
GOVENDER
...........................................................................;................
Third
Respondent
DONATI
CLOTHING
.............................................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
NTSHANGASE
J
[1]
In this matter the applicants sought an order interdicting and
restraining the respondents ‘from inciting, procuring or
encouraging any employee/member of the first applicant to become
employed by, either directly or indirectly, the business of the
fourth respondent or any other concern whatsoever, which carries on
the same business as the applicant.’ Other interdictory
relief relates to the restraint of disclosure or the divulging of the
trade secrets or confidential information of the applicants
and the
‘approaching, advising or contracting with, whether directly or
indirectly, any client or supplier of the applicants
or soliciting
the custom of any clients of the applicants.’ The
applicants advise that settlement has been reached
with the fourth
respondent; consequently no relief is now sought against the fourth
respondent.
[2]
In this application the applicants rely on a ‘confidentiality
agreement’ between the first applicant and the first
respondent
who signed it on 19 December 2011. The applicants allege that the
first respondent has breached the terms of the agreement
by targeting
and luring away employees of the first applicant and customers of the
second applicant in an attempt to take business
away from the
applicants. The respondents deny this.
[3]
When the matter served before me to be argued, counsel for the
applicants sought to withdraw the relief claimed in its application
stating that the need to pursue the claim had fallen away. He
then sought an order directing the respondents to pay the costs.
This was opposed by the respondents.
[4]
In support of the applicant’s claim for costs Mr Combrinck for
the applicant urged as did Mr Zietsman for the applicant
in
Germishuys v Douglas Besproeiingsraad
1973(3) SA 299 (NC) that
the merits be taken into consideration for purposes of determining
liability for payment of costs.
Mr Zietsman’s submission
in
Germishuys
reflects at page 32 paras D–E in the
following passage:
‘
Die vraag is egter wie die
koste moet betaal, en om hierdie vraag te beantwoord, aldus Mnr
Zietsman se verdere betoog, word in ‘n
geval soos die
onderhawige, gewoonlik op die meriete ingegaan om te sien wie die
saak sou gewen het, indien dit voortgesit sou
gewees het …’
The court did not agree. At page 303 para 4 the
court’s response is as follows:
‘
Mnr Zietsman se hele
betoog dat daar na die meriete gekyk moet word om te sien of
applikant op ‘n sekere kostebevel geregtig
is, al dan nie, gaan
vir my in die onderhawige geval nie op nie.’
The court draws the following distinction:
‘
Daar is na my mening ‘n
kernverskil tussen die posisie van ‘n applikant wat sy saak
skik op die meriete en dan vir die
Hof om uitsluitsel oor koste vra
en die posisie van ‘n applikant wat sy eise terugtrek en dan
probeer om ‘n kostebevel
teen hom af te weer.’
As is stated in the headnote of Germishuys,
‘
(w)aar ‘n litigant
‘n aksie terugtrek of in effek terugtrek moet daar baie
gegronde redes bestaan waarom ‘n verweerder
of ‘n
respondent nie geregtig sal wees op sy koste nie.’
[5]
I agree. There are, in the present matter no cogent reasons for
denying the respondents their costs and for awarding costs to
the
applicant, a litigant who withdrew or in effect withdrew its claim
for the relief prayed in its application.
[6]
I accordingly make the following order:
1. The applicant is granted leave to withdraw its claim
for relief as prayed in its application.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay
the respondents’ costs.
DATE
OF HEARING: 17 February 2015
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 16 March 2015
FOR THE APPELLANTS: Adv P J Combrinck, instructed by
Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Adv T Chetty,
instructed by Dawood & Associates for First and Third
respondent’s