IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 17291/24
REPORTABLE
In the matter between:
ROXSTAR GLOBAL CONSULTING (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CELINE STARK Respondent
REASONS IN TERMS OF RULE 49(1)(b)
RK PARKER AJ
Introduction
[1] What follows are the reasons for an order delivered on 4 March 2025 .
In addition to the request for reasons in terms of rule 49(1)(b) , the respondent also
filed a n application for leave to appeal . However, the reasons will be furnished
whereafter the application for leave to appeal will be considered to give the
parties an opportunity to file heads of argument should it be so desired,
alternatively , for both parties to argue the leave to appeal on a date to be agreed
upon in due course .
2
The application
[2] The main application was brought on an urgency basis in terms of rule 6 (12) on
18 August 2024 and set down for hearing on 10 October 2024 , whereafter an order
was granted in terms of which the application was postponed by agreement between
the parties to 7 February 2024 on the semi urgent roll. The applicant seeks to enforce
the terms of an agreement in terms of which the respondent is required to return
confidential information belonging to the applicant .
[3] The applicant operates in a travel and events market , providing c oncierge
services and personalized travel planning . The respondent runs a company called
Coco Corporate which offers a range of corporate consultancy services and on this
basis, the respondent rendered services to the applicant including the provision of
social media and administrative related services . The parties th ereafter concluded a
consultancy agreement on 9 February 2023 .
The consultancy agreement
[4] The consultancy agreement contained detailed provisions including that the
respondent would have access to the applicant ’s clients, network , suppliers, brands,
partners , models and other confidential information . Applicant relies on terms of the
agreement , particularly that t he respondent would immediately at the applicant ’s
request return all originals, copies, reproductions and summaries or extracts of the
confidential information or at the applicant ’s o
ption destroy such originals , copies,
reproductions and summaries or extracts and certify the destruction thereof .
[5] This applicant says, this was acknowledged by the respondent in terms of
various provisions contained in the agreement . Furthermore , the respondent
undertook that she would not during the duration of the agreement and after its
3
termination contact any of the applicant ’s contacts or conduct business or attempt to
conduct busine ss with any contact of the applicant , including concluding transactions
with any contact of the applicant to , whether oral or in writing nor provide any
quotations or services with any of the applicant ’s employees .
[6] The contractual relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual
consent .
Respondent ’s refusal to return confidential information
[7] Following applicant ’s request for the return of the confidential information , the
application was launched against the respondent which contained relief against the
respondent for the return of all confidential information , within 24 hours, which
became the order delivered on 4 March 2025 under paragraph 2 the reof, the content
of which are:
7.1 Guest lists with contact information for corporate events.
7.2 Contact lists for clients, travel agents and other industry contacts.
7.3 Personal information of clients.
7.4 Login information and passwords to all trade portals of every hotel chain
and supplier chain, partner companies and platforms. This is particularly
sensitive, confidential and valuable information.
7.5 Directing the respondent to reinstate the Canva link and shared folder
drives belonging to the applicant.
7.6 Directing the respondent to permanently delete all data shared between
the Respondent, her affiliates and/ or designates, such data to include
originals, copies, reproductions and summaries or extra cts of any
confidential information belonging to the applicant.
4
[8] The interdict which was granted under paragraph 3 of the aforesaid order
followed the prayers as contained in the Notice of Motion served as an interdict against
the respondent. Of impor tance to the applicant was that respondent had access to
shared folders , which was also not granted , hence the application is needful to
reinstate the applicant ’s access to such shared folder .
[9] The application was foreshadowed by a written demand which was met with
resistance as the respondent believes that she was not under any contractual
obligation to return the confidential information . In her opposition , she embarked on
attacking the grammatical construction of the agreement opining that it was only
countersigned on the 2 of August 2023 .
[10] However , no answering affidavit was filed by the respondent.
Postponement
[11] On 7 February 2025at the hearing of the application , the respondent sought an
interlocutory application brought on urgency and seeking condonation for the non
compliance with the court rules, for a postponement of the main application for an
interdict and ancillary relief to a future date. In addition, respondent was seeking leave
to make application for con donation of her late fil ing of her answering affidavit on a
date to be determined in the future. This interlocutory application was opposed by the
applicant on the basis that essentially, the respondent's conduct has been dilatory .
[12] The affidavit ann exed to the interlocutory application was deposed to by the
legal representative of the respondent in her efforts to seek a postponement to be
afforded a “reasonable opportunity to properly consult with our offices and Counsel,
in preparation not only of the Respondent ’s answering affidavit but the necessary
application for condonation for the late filing thereof ” in circumstances where the legal
5
practitioner received instructions via email, on 30 January 2025 to render legal
services. However , the legal practitioner was only available on 3 February 2025 due
to her international travel.
[13] In her affidavit , the legal practitioner says that r espondent was not able to
furnish her erstwhile legal representatives with instructions as the respondent was
travelling abroad in Dubai and Amsterdam in November – December 2024.
Furthermore, the erstwhile attorneys were not appointed by the respondent, but rather
her ex boyfriend, and when the respon dent’s relationship with the ex- boyfriend ended,
she believed the main application would “simply fall away ”.
Evaluation
[14] In exercising a request for the postponement , the court has to exercise its
discretion whether to grant the application or not . Importantly , postponements are not
merely for t he asking . It has to be properly motivated and substantiated .1 The
applicant in the main application argued that the following considerations must be
taken into the decision whether or not to grant a postponement :
14.1 First, as the parties seeking a postponement seeks an indulgence, he or
she must show good cause for the interference with his or her
opponent ’s procedural right s to proceed and with the general interest of
justice in having the matter finalized .
14.2 Second , the court is entrusted with a discretion as to whether to grant or
refuse the indulgence .
14.3 Third, a court should be slow to refuse a postponement where the
reasons for the applicant ’s inability to proceed has been fully explained ,
1 Psychological Society of South Africa v Qwelane and Others 2017 (8) BCLR 1O 39 (CC), see
paragraph 4 page 2 applicants opposition to postponement .
6
where it is not a de laying tactic and w here justice demands that the party
should have further time for presenting his or her case .
14.4 Fourth, the prejudice that the parties may or may not suffer must be
considered .
14.5 Fifth, the usual rule is that the party who is responsible for the
postponement must pay the waste d costs .
Inordinate delay
[15] The applicant has shown that the respondent that s/he has:
15.1 filed her notice of intention to oppose on 26 September 2024 .
15.2 on 10 October 202 4, an order was granted by agreement postponing the
matter on 27 February 2025 on the semi urgent roll together with a
structured timetable to allow the parties a time period for the filing of an
answering affidavit, replying to affidav it and the heads of argument .
15.3 the attorneys of record for the respondent have filed the notice of
withdrawal on 4 November 2024 .
15.4 the respondent ’s current attorneys filed a notice of intention to oppose
on 3 February 2025 .
15.5 the postponement application was filed on 6 February 2025 .
[16] The affidavit in support of the postponement application is deposed to by the
attorney of record for the respondent and not by the respondent herself. Furthermore,
the respondent fails to account for her fai lure to take any steps between 10 October
2024 and 3 February 2025 to advance the conclusion of the matter . The only
explanation for the extensive delay is that the respondent was travelling abroad in
Dubai and Amsterdam during November and December 2024 , as reasons for her not
7
being able to provide her erstwhile attorneys with meaningful instructions . No
confirmatory affidavit is filed by the respondent or her erstwhile attorneys of record .
[17] In this global world , no explanation is provided as to why a consultation could
not take place virtually . More importantly , the applicant argued that the instructions
given to the erstwhile attorneys were that given by the respondent's ex-boyfriend , and
she believed that when she broke up with her ex -boyfriend , the respondent believed
that the application would simply fall away . I agree with the applicant that being abroad
and thinking that the application would simply fall away does not constitute sufficient
explanation for the granting of a postponement .
Complia nce with the court order
[18] It cannot be ignored that the respondent herself failed to file an answering
affidavit timeously . At the time the order was granted , the respondent was legally
represented and remained legally represented until after the date her answering
affidavit was due . No affidavit has been provided by the respondent's erstwhile
attorneys of record as to what instructions they were able to get fr om the respondent
with regard to the filing of an answering affidavit . Furthermore , in the postponement
of the matter to the semi -urgent roll was done by agreement between the parties
indicating that there had to be a measure of urgency to the matter .
Cond onation
[19] The purpose of the postponement is contingent upon cond onation being
granted , in the event that an answering affidavit is manifestly out of time . In this matter ,
the respondent only seeks leave to bring a conde mnation application in due course .
8
[20] In this regard , I agree with the applicant that the respondent did not at this stage
seek cond onation for the late filing of the as-of-yet non-existent affidavit , and should
such cond onation be refused in due course , the postponement will be rendered moot .
Merits
[21] The respondent misconstrues the nature of the applicant ’s application . Firstly ,
the applicant does not seek to interdict the respondent from trading. Secondly, t he
applicant is seeking to interdict the respondent from competing unlawfully with it by
misusing the applicant's proprietary information . Thirdly, t he applicant is not seeking
to enforce a restraint of trade agreement. Fourthly, the applicant does not seek
payment of money but the return of its confidential and proprietary information .
[22] The pitfalls in the respondent ’s case are that she has not taken the court into
her confidence by presenting the court with her version . The potential defence raised
in the affidavit in support of the pos tponement is not the respondent's version but
rather the views of the respondent's legal representative .
[23] What the applicant is seeking is clearly found in the agreement . There is no
escaping that nowhere is the validity of the agreement disputed by the respondent
under oath .
[24] It is so that the longer the delay ; the greater the prejudice is to the applicant
and which prejudice cannot be cured by a costs order . As long as the information is
being withheld by the respondent, the applicant alleges that it continues to suffer
reputational and economic harm . At this stage , the applicant could not indicate the
quantification of such harm, and the extent of the reputational harm suffered. It must
be borne in mind that the applicant is not seeking damages at this stage .
9
[25] In considering whether the court exercise d its discretion in refusing to grant a
postponement, the court heard the respondent ’s arguments on the nature of the
discretion being exercised in a judicial manner, namely that the postponement must
always be bona fide and not used simply as a tactical manoeuvre for the purpose of
obtaining an advantage to which the applicant is not legitimately entitled . On the
balance of convenience or inconvenience to both parties is a factor whi ch should be
considered and more importantly , the broader public interest should be considered .
In citing the Constitutional Court in Lekolwane v Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development ,2 one must look at the applicant ’s prospects of success on the merits .
[26] As to mere delay is not a nail in the coffin in every circumstance w here
fundamental fairness and justice justify a postponement , the court may in an
appropriate case allow such an application for a postponement even if the application
was not so timeously made .3 It was on this basis that just as delayed is justice denied
and the prejudice suffered by the applicant can only be cured by a hearing on the
merits and accordingly , that postponement was refused and that proceeded to he ar
the application . Accordingly , the postponement was dismissed .
[27] Condonation cannot be asked for the mere asking , a party seeking cond onation
must make out a case entitling it to the court's indulgence. It must show sufficient
cause , “...this requires a party to give a full explanation for the non -compliance with
the rules or court's directions .4
2 2007 (5) SA 620 (CC) at 62 4 E-F 2
3 Myburgh Transport v Botha t/a SA Truck Bodies 1991 (3) SA 310 (Nms) at 315-D 317
4 Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority 2 014 (2) SA 68 CC para 23
10
Requirements for the final interdict
[28] The key principles for a final interdict are grounded in Setlog elo v Setlog elo,5
including three essential requirements that an applicant must satisfy to obtain a final
interdict . Firstly , a clear right . The applicant must demonstrate they have a legally
recognized right that is being threatened or infringed . Secondly , an injury actually
committed or reasonably apprehended . The applicant must show that the right has
been or will likely be infringed if the interdict is not granted . Thirdly , no alternative
remedy . The applicant must show that there is no other adequate remedy available ,
such as dam ages to protect their right .
[29] Relying on East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite
(Pty) and Others6, the court laid out the well-established requirements for obtaining a
final interdict , in reaffirm ing the three essential elements that an applicant must prove
to be granted a final interdict .
Material disputes of facts
[30] The respondent advanced that there were material disputes of fact where the
applicant at paragraph 24 , on its own version , admits that the dispute of the validity of
the consultancy agreement had already arisen prior to the launching of the application
for final relief . I do not agree . The respondent ’s full reliance on Rail Commuters Action
Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail7 is misplaced. I am not convinced that the material
dispute of fact has arisen on the papers as a result of the interdict being granted .
5 1914 AD 221
6 2011 JDR 1832 (GSJ)
7 2003 (6) SA 349 (A) at 368 C -D; 368G -H
11
[31] The respondent is the author of her own misfortune in her attempt to seek a
postponement caused by her own delay . For the reasons foreshadowed , the
application for the postponement was refused and the hearing argument on the order
was granted .
Costs
[32] There are no reasons to depart from making a costs order in line with the
clauses referred to above. Accordingly , costs on the attorney -client scale are justified.
[33] In the circumstances , the following order is made :
1. The Respondent's application for a postponement in order to bring a condo-
nation application for the late filing of her answering affidavit is dismissed.
2. The Respondent is directed, within 24 hours of the granting of this order, to
return all confidential information belonging to the applicant, including but not
limited to:
2.1 Guest lists with contact information for corporate events.
2.2 Contact lists for clients, travel agents and other industry contacts.
2.3 Personal information of clients.
2.4 Login information and passwords to all trade portals of every hotel
chain and supplier chain, partner companies and platforms. This is
particularly sensitive, confidential and valuable information.
2.5 Directing the Respondent to reinstate the Canva link and shared
folder drives belonging to the Applicant.
2.6 Directing the Respondent to permanently delete all data shared
between the Respondent, her affiliates and/or designates, such
12
data to include originals, copies, reproductions and summaries or
extracts of any confidential information belonging to the Applicant.
3. The Respondent is interdicted from:
3.1. Contacting any of the Applicant's contacts whose information
formed part of the confidential information referred to in paragraph 2
above;
3.2. Concluding any transactions or agreements with any of the
applicant's contacts whose information formed part of the confidential
information referred to in paragraph 2 above;
3.3. Conducting business, or attempting to conduct business, with any
contact of the Applicant whose information formed part of the
confidential information referred to in paragraph 2 above;
3.4. Providing any quotes or services of whatsoever nature to any contact
of the Applicant whose information formed part of the confidential
information referred to in paragraph 2 above; and
3.5 Using the services of, doing business with, employing or engaging any
contact of the Applicant for purposes of circumventing the applicant
and which will result in the Applicant being prevented from realising an
introduction fee or commission.
4. The Respondent is directed to provide proof, within 24 hours, of deletion of
such originals, copies, reproductions and summaries or extracts, as
contemplated in paragraph 2 above.
13
5. The Respondent is to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of
the postponement application.
__________________________
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PARKER AJ
14
Appearances:
Applicant ’s Counsel: Adv Paula Gabriel
Applicant ’s Attorney: Angel a Beeby Attorneys
Respondent ’s Counsel : Adv K L Klopper
Respondent ’s Attorney : Dolata Clement & Co Inc.
Hearing Dates: 7 & 11 February 2025
Judgment Date: 19 June 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties ’
representatives by email.