IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025-245623
In the matter between:
OLOF ABRAHAM JOUBERT First Applicant
CHANDRÉ GOOSEN Second Applicant
And
MORNÉ VAN VUUREN Respondent
Coram: DA SILVA SALIE, J
Heard on: 11 March 2026
Delivered on: 12 March 2026
Summary:
Threatening communications – interdict – motion proceedings – respondent denying
sending text messages – respondent seeking to introduce affidavit and report of private
investigator analysing cellphone call log data – applicants disputing reliability and
methodology of report – admission of further affidavit creating material disputes of fact
central to merits – disputes concerning interpretation and reliability of technical
cellphone data – such disputes not capable of resolution on papers – Uniform Rule o f
Court 6(5)(g) – matter referred to oral evidence on specified issues – rule nisi to remain
in force pending determination – costs reserved.
ORDER
1. The affidavit of Ms Wendy Pascoe and the accompanying report are admitted
into the record.
2. The applicants’ conditional counter-application succeeds.
3. The matter is referred to the hearing of oral evidence in terms of Uniform Rule of
Court 6(5)(g) on the following issues:
(a) whether the cellphone number from which the threatening text messages
were sent was used or controlled by the respondent;
(b) the reliability and interpretation of the cellphone call log data relied upon
by the parties; and
(c) any other issue arising from the evidence of Ms Wendy Pascoe and any
expert evidence led by the applicants in response thereto.
(d) the first applicant and respondent is permitted to testify (both in person).
(e) the applicant is granted leave to supplement their papers within 15 days
from date hereof.
(f) the r espondent may reply within 15 days (only in respect of new issues
raised).
4. The rule nisi issued on 19 December 2025 shall remain in force pending the final
determination of the matter.
5. Costs are reserved for determination upon the final adjudication of the main
application.
JUDGMENT
DA SILVA SALIE J:
Introduction:
[1] This matter came before this Court on the return day of a rule nisi issued by me
on the urgent roll on 19 December 2025.
[2] In terms of that order the respondent was called upon to show cause why a final
interdict should not be granted restraining him fr om conduct including harassment,
intimidation, extortion, the use of confidential information belonging to the applicants
and approaching the applicants or their residence and business premises.
[3] The proceedings have however today given rise to a n in limine procedural
dispute concerning the admission of a further affidavit by a private investigator Ms
Wendy Pascoe (“the Pascoe Affidavit”) and the consequences flowing therefrom.
[4] Mr Holland for the applicants object to the admission of the Pascoe Affidavit. In
the alternative, and only in the event that it is admitted, they seek an order referring the
matter to oral evidence or trial in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 6(5)(g) and leave to file
a further affidavit. Ms Rüther for the respondent submits that there is no basis to refer
the matter to oral evidence and only the facts which are undisputed by the respondent
can be relied upon. The respondent denies that he sent the messages.
Background
[5] The dispute between the parties arises from a prior employment relationship. The
respondent previously worked for the first applicant, who is an attorney practising
through a law firm with offices in Cape Town and Pretoria.
[6] The applicants contend that dur ing the respondent’s employment various
difficulties arose between the parties. Allegations were made that the respondent had
been frequently late for work, that complaints had been lodged against the first applicant
with the Legal Practice Council, and th at the respondent had misappropriated money
belonging to the first applicant. The respondent disputes these allegations and contends
that they are irrelevant to the present proceedings.
[7] What is common cause is that the employment relationship between the parties
deteriorated and culminated in a labour dispute which was resolved during April 2025.
[8] Several months thereafter the applicants allege that they began receiving
threatening and defamatory text messages from a cellphone number which they
contend is associated with the respondent. According to the applicants, the messages
contained threats directed at them , their lives and their minor son , were to intimidate
them and undermine their professional activities. The applicants further allege t hat the
respondent telephonically contacted them and threatened members of the first
applicant’s family. The applicants were compelled to employ a private security firm at a
great expense and they experienced other far reaching emotional damage to their
family.
[9] The respondent denies these allegations. He maintains that he did not send the
text messages relied upon by the applicants and disputes that the cellphone number
from which the messages were sent was used or controll ed by him. The respondent
further contends that he resides in Pretoria while the applicants reside in Cape Town .
However the cellphone call log data relating to the number in question indicates that the
phone was predominantly active in the Western Cape during periods when he was not
present there.
[10] In response to a question from the Court, Mr Holland indicated that the
threatening messages had completely stopped since the granting of the interim order on
19 December 2025.
The rule nisi
[11] On 19 December 2025 the applicants launched urgent proceedings in this Court
seeking interdictory relief.
[12] A rule nisi was granted calling upon the respondent to show cause why a final
interdict should not be granted restraining him from, inter alia:
(a) harassing, threatening or intimidating the applicants;
(b) utilising confidential information belonging to them;
(c) approaching their residence or business premises; and
(d) otherwise interfering with their professional activities.
Subsequent affidavits
[13] The respondent delivered an answering affidavit in which he denied responsibility
for the text messages relied upon by the applicants. On 16 February 2026 the
respondent delivered a supplementary affidavit which referred to a report obtained from
a private investigation firm, Pascoe (Pty) Ltd . The report related to cellphone call log
data associated with the number from which the disputed messages were sent.
[14] The further affidavit also make allegations that the applicants are most likely the
transmitter of these messages to themselve s. The respondent also attached to his
supplementary affidavit a media article published on the Netwerk24 platform referring to
allegations that the second applicant expended substantial sums on SMS votes during
the 2021 Mrs South Africa competition. The article itself constitutes hearsay and cannot
serve as proof of the truth of the allegations contained therein. Nevertheless, the
competing explanations advanced by the parties regarding the origin, purpose and
volume of the text messages illustrate the broader difficulty confronting the court in
motion proceedings. The applicants contend that the respondent was responsible for
sending threatening messages, whereas the respondent disputes that the messages
emanated from him and relies on cellphone records and th e Pascoe report to support
that denial. These competing factual narratives, together with the technical nature of the
cellphone evidence, underscore that the dispute cannot satisfactorily be resolved on the
papers alone and reinforce the appropriateness of referring the matter to oral evidence
in terms of Rule 6(5)(g).
[15] On 3 March 2026 the respondent delivered a further affidavit seeking leave to
append an affidavit by Ms Wendy Pascoe, together with a report analysing the
cellphone records.
[16] The applicants objected to the admission of this affidavit and report. They
contend that the material was introduced without proper leave of the Court and that it
constitutes expert evidence which cannot properly be evaluated without cross -
examination.
[17] Should however the Court admit the affidavit into the record, the applicants
brought a conditional counter -application seeking a referral of the matter to oral
evidence or trial.
Admission of the Pascoe affidavit
[18] A court retains a discretion to admit further affidavits in motion proceedings
where the interests of justice require it.
[19] In the present matter the Pascoe affidavit is directed at substantiating the
respondent’s denial that the cellphone number relied upon by the applicants was used
by him.
[20] The affidavit therefore addresses an issue central to the dispute between the
parties. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the affidavit should be admitted into the
record.
Determination of the matter on the papers:
[21] The admission of the Pascoe affidavit, however, introduces further factual
disputes.
[22] The applicants dispute the methodology employed by the investigator, the
reliability of the information relied upon, and the conclusions drawn from the cellphone
data including the location from which the cellphone was used.
[23] These disputes are fundamental to the issues and concern the central question
in the litigation, namely whether the respondent was responsible for the threatening
messages relied upon by the applicants.
[24] The Court is therefore faced with the interpretation and reliability of technical
cellphone data. Such evidence ordinarily requires testing by way of cross-examination.
Rule 6(5)(g)
[25] Uniform Rule of Court 6(5)(g) provides that where an application cannot properly
be decided on affidavit the court may direct that oral evidence be heard on specified
issues. In the present matter the admission of the Pascoe affidavit inevitably creates
disputes of fact that cannot satisfactorily be resolved on the papers.
[26] The Court would be required to evaluate the interpretation of cellphone records
and assess the credibility and reliability of the investigator whose report is relied upon .
If the applicants elect to appoint an expert, the Court would be presented with
compelling interpretations . Clearly those issues are quintessentially matters for oral
evidence.
Conclusion
[27] The applicants’ conditional counter -application was brought precisely in
anticipation of this difficulty. Once the Pascoe affidavit is admitted into the record the
matter cannot properly be determined on affidavit alone. The interests of justice
therefore require that the matter be referred for the hearing of oral evidence.
Order
[28] The following order is made:
[28.1] The affidavit of Ms Wendy Pascoe and the accompanying report are
admitted into the record.
[28.2] The applicants’ conditional counter-application succeeds.
[28.3] The matter is referred to the hearing of oral evidence in terms of Uniform
Rule of Court 6(5)(g) on the following issues:
(a) whether the cellphone number from which the threatening text
messages were sent was used or controlled by the respondent;
(b) the reliability and inte rpretation of the cellphone call log data relied
upon by the parties; and
(c) any other issue arising from the evidence of Ms Wendy Pascoe and
any expert evidence led by the applicants in response thereto.
(d) the first applicant and respondent is permitted to testify (both in
person).
(e) the applicant is granted leave to supplement their papers within 15
days from date hereof.
(f) the respondent may reply within 15 days (only in respect of new
issues raised).
[28.4] The rule nisi issued on 19 December 2025 shall remain in force pending
the final determination of the matter.
[28.5] Costs are reserved for determination upon the final adjudication of the
main application.
__________________________
G. DA SILVA SALIE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION
Appearances
For Applicant: Adv. M Holland
Instructed by: LP Hendricks Attorneys
For Respondent: Adv. G Ruther
Instructed by: J A Pieterse Attorneys