IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, P RETORIA
CASE NO : 052785/2025
DATE : 08-05-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE
SIGNATURE 10
In the matter between
HEAT IT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
STAVRAKIS MICHAELIDES Respondent
J U D G M E N T 20
NEUKIRCHER , J: This application was brought as one of
urgency and the applicant gave the respondent two weeks to file
an answering affidavit, which he did.
The relief sought by the applicant is the following:
1. That the application be heard as one of urgency in
terms of Rule 6(12).
2. “That a rule nisi be issued with return date
determined by the registrar of the honourable
Court when the respondent may advance
reasons why the following order should not be
made:
2.1. That the respondent be ordered to
immediately return the applicant’s drawing
described as: 10
2.1.1. The complete set of final physical
drawings necessary to enable Heat It
to manufacture, machine and
produce a specific product of high -
quality heating systems for the
poultry industry used to heat chicken
coops, as well as to heat other
necessary parts.
2.2. That the respondent be ordered to
immediately after the granting of this order 20
return to the applicant any electronic
storage device (USB) whereon the
aforementioned drawings are electronically
stored or available.
2.3. That the respondent be prohibited from
using, copying or distributing the
applicant’s drawing described in paragraph
2.1 above in any way whatsoever.
2.4. That the respondent be ordered to
immediately upon receiving this order,
destroy any copy or record of the
applicant’s drawings not returned in terms
of this order to the applicant.
2.5. That paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 serves as an
interim order with immediate effect.” 10
The applicant also seeks costs on the attorney and client
scale including counsel’s fees on scale C. On an aside on
this issue, if the costs are sought on an attorney and client
scale, the scale of costs becomes irrelevant.
It appears from the papers that the respondent was a former
employee of the applicant. He resigned with immediate
effect on 1 April 2025.
20
The bad blood between the two is clear from the papers and
evidence d further by the fact that the respondent has
approached the CCMA alleging constructive dismissal from
his employment. This is not an issue before this court and
therefore no further comment is required. The only import
is that it places the events that occurred from 1 April 2025
into context.
The applicant via its sole director, Mr Vorster, alleges that
since the respondent’s departure , his business has come to
a standstill as the respondent has taken with him essential
drawings that are required to conduct the applicant’s
business. He also alleges that these drawings are sensitive
and confidential and that the applicant requires their return.
10
The applicant manufactures and produces heating systems
for the poultry industry. These heating systems are used in
the poultry industry to heat chicken coops and other
necessary parts. According to the applicant it uses physical
drawings which are the “blue prints” for the production of
the heating system, its parts and components: this allows it
to “personalise” its approach to the manufacturing and
production processes. The drawings are thus critical to the
entire process as these allow the applicant to accurately set
the laser cutting machines it uses. 20
Although the respondent tends to take issue with the
ownership of the drawings, that is not a true dispute on
these papers. It appears that a company known as PC
Building Contractors & Shopfitters (Pty) Ltd (PC Building)
loaned the applicant funds to produce the original drawings.
After this, the applicant hired draftsmen to tailor the
drawings to its specific requirements and to improve them.
The point is also that on 1 April 2025 when the respondent
abruptly resigned and left the employ of the applicant, he
allegedly took with him the USB on which the updated
drawings were stored and which was used to operate the
laser cutting machines.
10
It is not in dispute that Mr Vorster called the respondent on
1 April 2025 and asked for the drawings to be returned and
the respondent undertook to leave the USB at Crawdaddy's
at Waterglen Shopping Centre in Menlyn. It appears that he
then did so, however, according to the applicant the USB
does not contain the updated drawings : it contains the
original drawings. According to the applicant the drawings
developed by the draftsman over the period of the past year
were not contained on the USB.
20
The applicant then informs the court that it employed an
expert to inspect the laser cutting machine. It then became
apparent that the drawings had been removed and copied
onto a USB. There is no confirmatory affidavit by this
expert nor is his name mentioned in the papers, thus there
is no proof of these allegations.
The applicant states that when he tried to use the laser
cutting machine on 18 April 2025 it then realised that the
settings had been changed to such an extent that the
machine cannot be operated without first being entirely
reconfigured. As the respondent was responsible for this
machine and as the issues with the machine arose after he
had left the applicant’s employ, the ineluctable conclusion is
that the respondent had a hand in all of this. 10
The respondent states in his answering affidavit that the
application was brought with undue haste and without
thought. No undertaking was first sought from him prior to
its launch which, although he denies possession of the
material in question, he states he would have provided. He
states :
“16 ... I have no intention of utilising the
applicant’s information and would for that 20
reason alone have given the applicant such
an undertaking.”
The respondent then states:
“19. The applicant mistakenly infers
wrongdoing from the mere fact that certain
electronic files were initially present on my
personal laptop and WhatsApp messages.
The WhatsApp messages for instance had
been legitimately sent to me by Mr Stefan
Venter, the draftsman working with the
applicant in the ordinary course of my
duties. I did not immediately delete them
upon resignation as there was no reason to
do so at the time – I had done nothing 10
wrong. It was only after the applicant
initiated this unnecessary dispute and
litigation that I deleted these messages.”
And:
“38. As detailed above, all drawings and
related materials in my possession were
either left at the workplace on 1 April 2025
or subsequently delivered to the applicant 20
on the same day. At the time of my
resignation the applicant already had
access to its original USB and could obtain
all drawings through its draftsman,
Mr Stefan Venter. There was no
withholding of material on my part.
Moreover, I voluntarily deleted any
remaining electronic copies of drawings
from my personal laptop and WhatsApp
chats shortly after this matter arose even
though they had been sent to me in the
ordinary course of business. I am no
longer in possession of any of the
applicant’s information – confidential or
otherwise – and I am willing to confirm this 10
under oath.”
Thus, from the above it is clear that at the time that the
application was issued and served, the respondent was in
possession of the applicant’s electronic files on his
personal laptop and via WhatsApp messages. It appears
that the application , thus at least at its initiation , had merit.
The respondent however denies possession of the USB and
states that he left it at the laser cutting machine upon his 20
departure on 1 April 2025. As stated, it does appear as
though he was in possession of the drawings sent to him by
the draftsman. However, the respondent is at pains to state
throughout his affidavit that he has now deleted all the
applicant’s information and that he has no intention of
competing with or “misusing” any of the applicant’s
information.
These being the facts, the issue is what relief to grant the
applicant. The notice of motion is stated in t oo broad
terms. Whilst a rule nisi is sought, there is no practical
effect to the grant of the relief in prayers 2.1 and 2.2.
On the basis of the Plascon Evans principle, the
respondent’s version on the issue of whether he is still in 10
possession of the disputed material is not so untenable that
it falls to be rejected. Thus, the issue is whether the
interdict sought in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the notice of
motion should be granted.
Although the relief is frame d as an interim interdict, it is
final in effect. In my view, on these papers it is clear that
the elements of the interdict have been met. The applicant
has a clear right to the drawings and the information
contained was confidential. 20
It was certainly not contested by the respondent that the
applicant had made alterations to the original drawings or
that competitors in the industry would have had the same
information. The balance of convenience favours the
applicant and it would be detrimental to its business for the
information to be shared or leaked and would allow
competitors to obtain an unfair advantage in the
marketplace were that to happen.
The irreparable harm lies in the fact that the applicant
alleges that it cannot operate its machines without the
drawings. This it would appear from the papers is an issue
and the drawings would have to be redone by the draftsman
as they were deleted once forwarded to the respondent who 10
in turn has now deleted them.
The applicant also stands to lose contracts and clients if it
cannot produce the necessary industry products. None of
this can adequately be compensated via a damages claim,
which is therefore not a suitable alternative remedy.
In my view thus interdict ory relief in the terms set out in
paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the notice of motion is justified.
20
On the issue of costs, the respondent argued that this
entire application could have been averted had the
applicant simply sought undertakings prior to the launch of
the proceedings. It was argued that the respondent’s
conduct demonstrates that he had no intention of
possessing the applicant’s information.
The applicant however argues that it is clear from these
papers that the application was necessary as , on the
respondent’s own version , he was still in possession of the
applicant’s information when the application was launched.
The argument was further that it is clear from the notice of
motion that what was sought from the respondent was for
him to inter alia hand over the drawings, instead he deleted 10
them. Therefore, his conduct according to the applicant
was not entirely bona fide .
In my view, both parties bear the same blame for this
application. Had a proper demand been sent prior to the
launch of proceedings given the respondent’s tender, this
application may well have been averted . However, the
respondent was well aware of the fact that the applicant
wanted its drawings returned and why . He not only retained
possession of them until the application was served on him, 20
but he then deleted them instead of complying with prayer 1
of the notice of motion.
As I have said, the notice of motion is also problematic in
the manner that it is framed.
All of this being so, I am of the view that each party must
bear their own costs.
The order is the following:
1. The r espondent is prohibited from using,
copying or distributing the applicant’s drawings
– being the complete set of final physical
drawings necessary to enable the applicant to
manufacture, machine and produce its products
for its heating systems for the poultry industry 10
used to heat chicken coops as well as other
necessary parts – in any way whatsoever.
2. The respondent is ordered to immediately
destroy any copy or record of the applicant’s
drawings in his possession.
3. Each party shall pay its or his own costs.
NEUKIRCHER , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Judgement handed down: 8 May 2025 20
Transcript revised: 22 May 2025