SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-212312
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: YES
DATE: 2-12-2025
SIGNATURE OF JUDGES:
In the matter between
TUMBLING TIGREZ (PTY) LTD
(Registration No. 2016/052101/07) Applicant
and
AMORETHA LOUW
(Identity Number: 9[...]) First Respondent
AMI HEALTH SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
(Registration No. 2019/175143/07) Second Respondent
MICHAEL JACOBUS KLEYNHANS Third Respondent
(Identity Number: 8[...])
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or
parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and
time for the hand down is deemed to be on this 2 day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
T. STRYDOM AJ:
Introduction
[1] The applicant brought an urgent application, and the relief claimed,
(summarised in the applicant’s Heads of Argument) are as follows:
a. Interdicting and restraining the first, second and third respondents
(“the respondents ”) from using the applicant’s confidential
information;
b. Interdicting the respondents from competing unlawfully with the
applicant, directly or indirectly, whether in their personal capacities or
acting through the second respondent;
c. Enforcing the restraint of trade provisions in clause 18 of the
Franchise Agreement; and
d. Ordering the respondents to deliver all
equipment/information/manuals/ documents and legal
documentation provided to the first respondent by the applicant for
purposes of operating a franchise, as well as any replicas or copies
made of such equipment, within 5 days of the granting of the order.
[2] At the outset of the hearing, I accepted that the issues relating to the
restraint of trade, which is only applicable until 5 June 2026, are sufficiently
urgent, and requested counsel to focus on the merits of the case.
[3] As the matter developed, the main issues were the following:
a. Whether the applicants made out a case against the third
respondent, considering the Plascon Evans rule, that the third
respondent breached the Confidentiality Agreement entered
between the applicant and the third respondent? If not, what the
possible risk is of the third respondent breaching the Confidentiality
Agreement in future.
b. Whether the applicants made out a case against the first and second
respondents, considering the Plascon Evans rule, that the first
respondent, be that t hrough the second defendant, breached the
Restraint of Trade Agreement entered between the applicant and the
first respondent? If so, what the possible risk is, on the first
respondent breaching the Restraint of Trade in future.
c. The issues relating to the applicant returning the equipment
purchased by first respondent in terms of the Franchise Agreement.
[4] I accepted, for purpose of this application, that applicant had a protectable
interest in protecting its rights in terms of the Franchise Agreement, and that
the restraint of trade was valid and enforceable.
[5] The issue was whether the applicant had shown that the respondents were
in breach of the Confidentiality Agreement and /or the Restraint of Trade
Agreement, respectively, and whether prejudice was flowing from it.
[6] THE PLASCON EVANS RULE:1
1 See National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 SCA at para [26].
“[26] Motion proceedings, unless concerned with interim relief, are all
about the resolution of legal issues based on common cause
facts. Unless the circumstances are special, they cannot be used
to resolve factual issues because they are not designed to
determine probabilities. It is well established under the
Plascon-Evans rule that where in motion proceedings
disputes of fact arise on the affidavits, a final order can be
granted only if the facts a verred in the applicant's (Mr
Zuma’s) affidavits, which have been admitted by the
respondent (the NDPP), together with the facts alleged by
the latter, justify such order. It may be different if the
respondent’s version consists of bald or uncreditworthy
denials, raises fictitious disputes of fact, is palpably
implausible, far-fetched or so clearly untenable that the court
is justified in rejecting them merely on the papers.2 The court
below did not have regard to these propositions and instead
decided the case on probabilities without rejecting the
NDPP’s version.3”
THE THIRD RESPONDENT: THE CONFIDENTIALLY AGREEMENT:
[7] It is common cause that the third respondent signed a Non-Disclosure and
Confidentiality Agreement (“the Confidentiality Agreement”), which
agreement refers to the applicant as “ the Disclosing Party” and to the third
respondent as “the Receiving Party”, and inter alia provides:
“1. CONFIDENTIALITY UNDERTAKING
1.1. The Receiving Party undertakes to the Disclosing Party that: -
1.1.1. It shall maintain and uphold utmost confidentiality and good faith
2 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) 634-5; Fakie NO v CCII Systems
(Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) para 55; Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions; Zuma v
National Director of Public Prosecutions 2008 (2) SACR 421 (CC) para 8-10.
3 Sewmungal NNO v Regent Cinema 1977 (1) SA 814 (N); Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk v Western Bank Bpk NNO
1978 (4) SA 281 (A).
in relation to confidential information disclosed in any manner (this
includes but is not limited to any manner that is verbal/written or
electronic).
1.1.2. It shall not divulge, publish, apply, use, implement or disclose in
any manner as mentioned in clause 1.1.1 above, any of the
confidential information received from the Disclosing Party, to any
third party (this includes but is not limited to any person, firm,
company, corporation, trust or other entity whatsoever).
1.1.3. It shall not at any time use any of the confidential information or
any part or extract thereof for their own benefit (financial or
otherwise) or for such benefit of any third party.
1.2. …
1.3. …
1.4. It shall safeguard all confidential information and shall take all
necessary precautions to prevent the confidential information from
being disclosed to any person, firm, corporation or entity and
without limiting the aforegoing, the Receiving Party agrees to use
due and reasonable care in the storage of confidential
information.”
[8] In the preamble to the Confidentiality Agreement, confidential information is
described as all information marked or indicated as such and includes
electronic, written and verbal information and without limiting the aforegoing,
shall include all business plans, financial figures, presentations, discussion
papers, business models, email/SMS/instant messages, reports and research
and/or inventions prepared and distributed by any employee of the Disclosing
Party or any Designated Person who is instructed by the Disclosing Party to do
so.
[9] There is no specific definition in the content of the Confidentiality Agreement to
what confidential info rmation is. F or purposes of considering whether there
was a breach of the Confidentiality Agreement, the court accept s that the
parties intended to refer to confidential information as in the preamble.
[10] On a perusal of the founding affidavit, the court could not find that any case
was made out by the applicant that the third respondent breached the
Confidentiality Agreement, by utilising any of the confidential information as
described in the preamble of the Confidentiality Agreement.
[11] The applicant failed to show what specific confidential information the first
respondent was using in breach of the Confidentiality Agreement.
[12] The high watermark of allegations made against the third respondent is
directed at his involvement with the second respondent.
[13] The bald allegation that the third respondent, through his involvement with the
second respondent, is in breach of the c onfidentially agreements by using
applicant’s trade secrets and confidential information to unlawfully complete
with applicant’s business operation, remains unsubstantiated.
[14] The aforesaid must be measured with reference to the content of the
answering affidavit, where it is stated that the second respondent’s involvement
is limited to children 10 and older, grade 4 and up.
[15] The third respondent, according to the respondents, has a limited involvement
in the second respondent in that he does ne uro-profiling, based on
neuroscience aimed at children 10 and older, grade 4 and up.
[16] Accordingly, the court cannot find that the third respondent breached the
Confidentiality Agreement or that there is a risk that it will occur in future.
THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS: THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE
AGREEMENT CONTAINED IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT:
[17] It is common cause that the applicant conducts business by providing a
specialised programme to minor children between the ages of 3 – 9 years old
(up to grade 3).
[18] It is common cause that the applicant also provides franchising opportunities,
in terms whereof franchisees may provide the programme on the terms and
conditions set out in a written franchise agreement.
[19] It is common cause that the first respondent concluded a written Franchise
Agreement with the applicant on 17 November 2021, in terms whereof the
first respondent was granted the license to utilise the applicant’s business
model, brand, goodwill, training and marketing as set out in the franchise
agreement, in the territory of Hartbeespoort, North-West Province.
[20] It is common cause that the following definitions, appear in the franchise
agreement:
“1.1.3 “Business Operations” or “Services” means the services
provided by the Franchisor to consumers centred on child
development including inter alia fully endorsed Programmes
designed to engage minor children, under the age of 10 (ten)
years old, in different Lessons and Sessions focused on healthy
physical activity intended to improve and develop minor children’s
physical and mental health, attention span, stability, strength,
flexibility, athleticism, cognitive and perceptive abilities,
enthusiasm and exposes minor children to an active lifestyle and
numerous sporting disciplines. The Services are conducted by
highly qualified and experienced trainers and incorporate an
array of influences including but not limited to Pilates,
gymnastics, boxing and ball skills.”
and
“1.1.4 “Confidential Information” means the Franchisor’s trade,
commercial, operational, financial and management
information, as well as confidential and other proprietary
information howsoever such Confidential Information may be
disclosed or made availa ble to the Franchisee including,
without limiting the foregoing, whether direct or indirect, orally,
visually, in writing or in electronic format or by reason of
inspection of documentation or sessions or lessons or other
matter on or at the Franchisor’s p remises, places of operations
or elsewhere including, but not limited to the following
information:
1.1.4.1. software, technologies, technical information and expertise,
concepts, ideas, inventions, methods, methodologies,
procedures, processes, systems, techniques , designs,
formulations, sessions, lessons, programmes, models, templates
or work papers;
1.1.4.2. know-how, and methods of management, marketing strategies,
financial information, sales estimates, business structures,
operation or conducting business and strategy used or to be
used, development and growth tools and projections, target
markets;
1.1.4.3. technical data, product or process specifications and all other
technical, mechanical and computer information;
1.1.4.4. financial, supply, operational, exclusivity or other contractu al
arrangements between the Franchisor and its suppliers,
employees, contractors, clients, sources of material, partners,
agents, franchisees and business associates;
1.1.4.5. any material or information subject to copyright, trademark,
patent or other form of intellectual property rights;
1.1.4.6. any information that relates to past projects of the Franchisor;
1.1.4.7. any supplier, employee, franchisee and/ or client information;
1.1.4.8. the contents of the Agreement and all schedules, annexures,
addendums thereto;
1.1.4.9. any other matter that relates to the business of the Franchisor in
respect of which information is not readily available in the normal
course of business and which may come to the knowledge of the
Franchisee;
1.1.4.10. information that, by its nature or content, is identifiable as
confidential and/ or proprietary to the Franchisor and information
that is intended or by its nature or content could reasonably be
expected to be confidential and/ or proprietary to the Franchisor;
1.1.4.11. names, addresses and particulars of clients, children, customers,
employees, contractors, suppliers, importers, exporters,
licensors, licensees, shareholders, franchisees, directors and
other stakeholders of the disclosing Party.”
and
“119 ”Intellectual Property” means patents, trademarks, work
marks, design rights, copyright (including all copyright in any
designs and computer software), source code, any concepts,
ideas, methods, methodologies, procedures, processes, know -
how, techniques, models, manuals, templates, software,
software tools, les sons, programmes, training, sessions,
technology, utilities, routines, designs, drawings,
documentation, records, specifications, memorandum,
recordings or items of a similar nature, trade or business names,
marks, brands and other similar rights or obligations, whether
capable of registration or not, but including any right to register
same.”
and
“1.1.12 “Programmes”, “Lessons” or “Sessions” means the
numerous programmes and/or lessons and/or sessions and
associated content, daily activities, workshops, training and any
other activity or operation designed around the Business
Operations aimed at the development of minor children as set
out in the Business Operations and designed by the Franchisor.”
[21] In paragraph 8.3 and 8.4 of the Franchise Agreement the following is stated:
“8.3. The Franchisee declares that it has read and understood the
Franchisor's disclosure document, the draft employment contract,
the Franchisor's Policies, the Franchisor's Res traint of Trade,
the Franchisor's confidentiality undertaking and the
Franchisor's Disciplinary Code.
8.4. The Franchisee is subject to the terms and conditions set out
in the Franchisor's Policies, the Franchisor's Restraint of
Trade, the Franchisor's c onfidentiality undertaking and the
Franchisor's Disciplinary Code and the Franchisee undertakes to
ensure that all of its employees, staff and contractors are provided
with such documentation before signing contracts of employment
or other like agreements with the Franchisee and further to ensure
that all of its employees, staff and contractors undertake to abide
by the terms and conditions set out in such documentation.”
[22] Although the clauses refer to a separate confidentiality agreement, it
appears that applicant’s case is not based on a separate confidentiality
agreement signed by first respondent, outside the ambit of the Franchise
Agreement. No such separate confidentiality undertaking signed by first
respondent is annexed to or relied upon by the applicant in the founding
affidavit. The applicant, in its case against first respondent, relies only on the
Franchise Agreement and the restrictions contained therein.
[23] The restraint of trade clause is contained in clause 18 of the Franchise
Agreement:
“18. Restraint of Trade
18.1. The prescribed period for the purposes of this paragraph
will be 18 (eighteen) months from the date of termination,
cancellation or assignment of this Agreement by the
Franchisee.
18.2. The prescribed area for the purposes of this paragraph
shall be any area in which the Franchise operates
including, without limitation, the Territory.
18.3. It is recorded that in the course and scope of owning a
franchise, that the Franchisee will acquire a considerable
level of know - how and knowledge regarding the
Franchise's techniques relating to both the programme and
the confidential information of the Franchise as a whole.
18.4. This includes, inter alia, the following;
18.4.1. Information of clientele;
18.4.2. Trade secrets;
18.4.3. Personal relationships with clients;
18.4.4. Knowledge of the Company Operations,
Programmes, Services, Confidential Information
and Intellectual Property.
18.5. It is acknowledged that the only effective and reasonable
manner in which the Franchisor's rights can be protected in
such regard is that a restraint of trade is imposed on the
Franchisee.
18.6. During the prescribed period the Franchisee undertakes
not to, whether directly or indirectly, compete with the
business of the Franchise in any way whatsoever and shall
not:
18.6.1. Engage, entice, persuade or induce any employee
or staff of the Franchisor to terminate their
employment with the franchisor, or any employee
or staff of other franchisees of the Franchise to
terminate their employment with such franchisee;
or
18.6.2. Solicit orders from the Franchisor's clients or the
other franchisee's clients for the rendering of the
services or any competing services of the
Franchisor's or the other franchisee's clients; or
18.6.3. Place orders on the suppliers of the Franchise for
the supply of any part of the Franchise's
Programme and Business Operations; or
18.6.4. Furnish any information or advise to any supplier
that the Franchisee intends to, whether directly or
indirectly, be engaged with or employed by the
Franchise in any of the prescribed areas which
conducts Business Operations and supplies
services and/ or products similar to that of the
Franchise; or
18.6.5. Furnish any information or advice to any client or
use any other means or take other action which is
directly or indirectly designed to result in a client to
terminate its association with the Franchise, or
attempt to do so;
18.7. Without derogating from the obligations involved in this
Agreement, the Franchisee undertakes that it, directly or
indirectly, shall during the prescribed period in any of the
prescribed areas and whether for reward or not:
18.7.1. Solicit or attempt to solicit orders directly from
clients of the Franchise for the supply of products
or rendering of services;
18.7.2. Solicit or attempt to solicit the supply of products
from any of the suppliers of the Franchise;
18.7.3. Canvass business directly from the suppliers and
clients of the Franchise without written consent
given by the Franchisor;
18.7.4. Undertake any supply of products or rendering of
services from the Franchise's clients unless such
requests are received through the Franchise and
authorised by the Franchisor in writing;
18.7.5. Undertake to place orders for the supply of any
goods or services unless such orders are placed
through the Franchise or are authorised with the
consent of the Franchisee.”
[24] It is common cause that the duration of the restraint of trade is for a period of
18 months, from date of cancellation on 5 December 2024, and only applicable
to the Hartebeespoort area.
[25] The first respondent disputes that she, either in person or through the second
respondent supply services or similar services to anyone, in competition with
the applicant.
[26] Should no such services be rendered, it cannot infringe upon the applicant’s
protectable interest, or for that matter in any way prejudice the applicant.
[27] The following are the facts and events broadly summarised:
a. The applicant’s business operations involve presenting a specialised
program to minor children between the ages of 3 to 9. The applicant
developed its programme in consultation with various child -
development experts with a view to creating a fun, functiona l and
balanced 30 - minute exercise programme in accordance with the
physical needs of minor children between the ages of 3 -9 years old.
The 3-9 years group covers pre-schools to grade 3.
b. The programme is marketed to pre-schools, playgroups, creches, early
education schools (“early education schools”) under the name and
style of Tumbling Tigerz.
c. Early education schools then decide whether or not they want to sign
up with the applicant, in which case its programme is presented at the
school during school hours. However, for the children to participate in
the programme, parents must register and enroll their children with the
applicant and remain liable for payment of the applicant’s fees
themselves (as o pposed to payment being processed through the
school itself).
d. The applicant’s relationships with its clients (parents), signed up
schools, and suppliers of their specifically designed and produced
equipment all contribute to the success of the Tumbling Tigerz
Programme and its brand and reputation.
e. The first and third respondents conduct business through the second
respondent and are directors of the second respondent.
f. According to the first respondent, the second respondent offers
services in a different market , different than the applicant’s service
and market, being under 3 categories: AMI Fitness, AMI Swimming
and AMI Education.
g. It is common cause that the categories AMI Swimming and AMI
Education pose no problem for applicant, thus only the fitness
programme remains an issue.
h. According to the first respondent, the second respondent offers a
holistic approach to advance general wellness, and its main clientele
are intermediary children and adults, corporate entities and students
10 years and older (grade 4 and older).
i. The first respondent alleges that the AMI Fitness programme is not
yet fully operational but is still being developed.
[28] The applicant states that the allegations by the first respondent that the
fitness programme is only for children 10 years and older (gr ade 4 and
older), are untrue considering the circumstances, which are briefly
summarised below:
a. One day after the franchise agreement came to an end, on 6
December 2024, the first respondent approached the Willow Tree
Academy, which is a school signed up by the applicant. The first
respondent provided pamphlets to Willow Tree Academy, which
pamphlets did not state any age limit. This , according to applicant,
signifies a soliciting of the applicant’s business.
b. On the first respondent’s version, the fitnes s programme is provided
only to 5 students, 10 years and older, at Millstream, which is also a
school signed up by applicant.
c. Despite saying that the fitness programme is only for children 10
years and older, the first respondent’s home page displayed that it
provides the programme for students 9 years and older. However,
the home page was later amended the December 2014 , to provide
for 10 years and older.
d. On the 29 August 2025 the first respondent attended an open day at
Millstream Preparatory School (“Millstream”), which is a school that
caters for children grade 000 to grade 7, as well as Little Minno ws
Early Learning Centre ( “Little Minno ws”), a nursing school which
caters for ch ildren 2 ½ in years of age until age 5/6. The first
respondent had set up a stand there, displaying information flyers.
The applicant argues that the first respondent had no business there,
as the schools were for the younger children, and not for the
intermediatory children, which the first respondent professes to cater
for. The applicant therefore poses the question of what the first
respondent was doing there and argues that it signifies the first
respondent’s intention to infringe upon the applicant’s business and
clientele.
e. The applicant also points out that the first respondent’s during its
attendance to Little Minno ws distributed pamphlets provided
regarding its fitness programme and a Facebook message appeared
thereafter stating that AMI Fitness enjoyed every moment at Little
Minnows at Millstream Preparatory school.
f. The first respondent admitted attendance at Little Minnows, but
states that the visit was aimed at marketing its fitness programme for
learners in the intermediatory group and the respondents’ swimming
programme. In response to the first respondent, the applicant states
it is untrue and should be rejected.
[29] The applicant’s case, with reference to the question whether the first
respondent has breached the restraint of trade clause, should be considered
with reference to a proper interpretation of such clause, applying the normal
principles of the Natal Joint P ension Fund v Endumeni ,4 and with
reference to the text, context and purpose and circumstances prevailing.
4 2012(4) SA 593 (SCA) at para [18]
[30] Paragraph 18.6 of the restraint of trade clause, states that the undertaking is
not to compete, directly or indirectly with the business of the franchisee.
[31] Considering a proper interpretation of clauses 18.6 and 18.7 of the restraint
of trade clause, I am of the view that the interests that the applicant intended
to protect is to prevent a previous franchisee, such as the first respondent, to
compete with the applicant’s business, to its detriment, and to the infringe
on the applicant’s protectable interest, being its business.
[32] If any other business is done outside the scope of the applicant’s business,
such business could not be prejudicial, as it does not infringe on the
applicant’s protectable interest.
[33] No specific incidence of prejudice was presented, either in the papers or
during oral argument.
[34] Applying the Plascon Evans rule, and considering the responses in the
answering affidavit where the respon dents pointed out that they are not
venturing on the same business as the applicant, or in competition with the
applicant, and do not intend to do so while the restraint of trade which they
acknowledge to be in existence, is applicable, there is no reasons for the court
to reject such responses applying the robust approach.
[35] Under the circumstances, the applicant has failed to show that the first
respondent, or for that matter the second respondent, breached the restraint of
trade clause, or that they intended to do so. In fact, it appears to the court that
the first respondent is aware of the content of the restraint of trade,
acknowledging it and is intending to respect it. There is accordingly no risk, or
well-grounded apprehension of a breach.
EQUIPMENT:
[36] Clause 9 pertains to the equipment provided to franchisees in order to present
the programme. Clause 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 further specifically deals with the
prohibition on disclosure of confidential information:
“9.3. In the event that this Agreement term inates for any reason
whatsoever, and with cognisance of the fact that the Franchisee
will be prohibited thereafter from utilising the Franchisor's
Confidential Information and Intellectual Property, with specific
reference to the Franchisor's Programme an d Services, brand,
goodwill and logo , the Franchisor shall purchase such equipment
back from the Franchisee at a reduced rate and in proportion to
the damage, depreciation and reasonable wear and tear that may
have been occasioned by the Franchisee's owner ship of such
equipment. Alternatively, and at the Franchisor's sole election, the
Franchisee must destroy all such equipment at the Franchisor's
behest. This clause applies to all equipment that the Franchisee
obtains in order to conduct the Business Opera tions and which
possesses any of the Franchisor's Confidential Information or
Intellectual Property , whether provided by the Franchisor to the
Franchisee or purchased by the Franchisee thereafter.
...
9.8. Some of the items listed above fall part of the Confidential
Information that the Franchise possesses in order to complete its
Business Operations and objectives and as such should remain
privy only to the Franchise itself and not to any external source
whatsoever unless agreed to in writing between the Parties or
unless impossible to keep confidential given the nature of the
Business Operations and exposure of certain equipment to 3rd
parties.
9.9. The Franchisee and its actors, contractors, employees, m embers,
staff, directors and other stakeholders as the case may be shall
not disclose the contents of the Programme and Confidential
Information, or associated thereto, which knowledge does not fall
part of the public domain to any person unless such indiv idual has
signed a form of confidentiality and a non - disclosure agreement
and is regarded as an employee of the Franchisee.
9.10. The Franchisee agrees to use the equipment listed herein solely
for the purposes of the Programme and Business Operations.”
[37] The applicant developed its own specialised equipment in conjunction with
Damascus Sport, that is used in the programme. Several items, for example,
the play equipment, speed paddles, hurdles and sensory tunnels are bespoke,
manufactured exclusively for the applicant, and not av ailable for direct retail
sale to the general public.
[38] During March 2025, the first respondent contacted Mr Butler to negotiate a
sale of the equipment still in the first respondent’s possession back to the
applicant, but the parties reached no agreement r egarding the price and
sale.
[39] Only some of the equipment was branded with the prescribed Tumbling
Tigerz trademarks.
[40] The first respondent was thereafter verbally instructed by Mr Mirek Gavel to
destroy the equipment in terms of the provisions of clause 9. 3 of the
franchise agreement.
[41] The first respondent did not destroy the equipment, and, instead instructed
Bundu Trailers to replicate (or as the first respondent contends, modify) a
specific item of the applicant’s equipment (a yellow/orange PVC tunnel),
which forms part of it s confidential information, to unlawfully compete with
the applicant.
[42] The first respondent, in its heads of argument, and during the hearing
tendered the return of all branded items, and as I understand also the 4
tunnels, such as the one left at Bundu Trailers.
[43] I note from the notice of motion, prayer 6, that the applicant is seeking the
delivery of the equipment, from the respondents.
[44] Although clause 9.3, referred to above, does not make provision for the return
of the items, only for the destroying of it, the return of the goods mentioned
above are voluntarily tendered, and the applicant can take steps to collect it.
[45] It is no ted that clause 9.3 only applies to equipment which possesses the
franchise’s confidential information or intellectual property, and no more.
Unbranded equipment, which can be purchased in the open market do not fall
within such category.
Order
Accordingly, I make the following order:
[1] The applicant’s application is dismissed;
[2] the applicant must pay the first, second and third respondents ’ costs, on a
party and party basis, and the appropriate scale is scale B.
STRYDOM AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
For the Applicants: Adv M Snyman SC
Adv A Maré
Instructed by: Fisher Roeland Attorneys
For the Respondents: AC Diamond
Instructed by:
Date of Hearing: 27 November 2025
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025