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
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAKZDHC 18
|
|
S & N Logistics CC v Ramkisen and Another (2025-112735) [2026] ZAKZDHC 18 (23 January 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
CASE
NO:
2025-112735
In
the matter between:
S
& N LOGISTICS CC
Applicant
and
SHOLAN
PATRICK RAMKISEN
First Respondent
SPICY
TRANSPORT CC
Second Respondent
ORDER
The
following order shall issue:
The
applicant is given leave to withdraw the application and directed to
pay the costs of the application.
JUDGMENT
OLIFF
AJ
[1]
On 11 July 2025, the applicant instituted an urgent application
seeking to interdict the first
and second respondents pursuant to a
restraint pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement concluded with the
second respondent on 21
May 2024.
[2]
In terms of the agreement, the first respondent was precluded from
directly or indirectly making
an offer of employment to, or request
an interview from an employee or agent for at least one year of
signing the agreement and
for at least one year after its
termination.
[3]
It is common cause that the first respondent's employment was
terminated on 28 January 2025.
[4]
On 16 July 2025 the application was struck from the roll with costs.
[5]
The filing of papers was thereafter completed, and the matter was set
down for hearing on 19 January
2026. Even if judgment was granted in
favour of the applicant, the relief would last a mere 9 additional
days.
[6]
Mr
Moosa
, who was not the draftsman of the papers or the heads
of argument, adopted a sensible and rational approach in advising
that the
applicant wished to withdraw the application. The only issue
that remained was that of costs.
[7]
In order to exercise my discretion in relation to costs, it is
necessary to consider the parties
actions, as well as consider the
merits of the matter.
[8]
The applicant had not asked for the matter to be referred for oral
evidence, to resolve any disputes
of fact. The time factor obviously
played a factor in this decision but results in any factual dispute
must be accepted on the
respondent's version.
[9]
The logistics business is described as a competitive industry with
small margins of profitability.
[10]
In the founding papers, the following is stated:
'38.1
'...acquired, came into possession of, and had access to, proprietary
and confidential information of the applicant, including
but not
limited to business strategies, client information, pricing/rates
structures, banking information and other sensitive data
and
information specific to the applicant's business operations ("
the
confidential information"
);
38.2
became familiar with and had access to the applicant's current and
prospective clients and the individual
needs;
38.3
acquired considerable benefit and industry knowledge;
38.4
acquired considerable knowledge over the operations of the
applicant's business and its clientele; and
38.5
became privy to confidential matters relating to the applicant's
operations.'
[11]
Applicants in such matters are required to navigate a route whereby
sufficient information is disclosed
to enable the Court to consider
whether there is a protectable interest in the form of confidential
information.
[12]
The court in
Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes and Another
(2013) 34 ILJ 529 (GSJ) explained what is required for
information to be categorised as such:
"It is trite that
the law enjoins confidential information with protection. Whether
information constitutes a trade secret
is a factual question. For
information to confidential it must be capable of application in the
trade or industry, that is, it
must be useful and not be public
knowledge and property; known only to a restricted number of people
or a close circle and be of
economic value to the person seeking to
protect it."
[13]
I am in agreement with Ms
Moodley's
submission that the bald
allegation of alleged existence of "business strategies"
and the applicant's function, do not
assist in the factual enquiry.
[14]
The applicant has, in my view, failed to adequately navigate the
passage of explanation of the information
to enable any proper
consideration of the factual position.
[15]
Once I accept the respondent's explanation of prior dealing with
various customers and the explanation of
prior business done in
respect of Militrans, it is difficult to find that there was unlawful
competition. Certainly, there is no
evidence sustained that the
allegation that the respondent sought not only to benefit but to
cripple or eliminate the applicant,
a business competitor.
[16]
Mr
Moosa
correctly conceded that the applicants had alternate
remedies, such as a damages claim. Unfortunately, Mr
Moosa's
arrival as a representative was too late in the hour to remedy the
application.
[17]
Ms
Moodley
, when questioned as why the respondents had not
sought to initiate settlement proceedings as it would clear the
proverbial clock
was about to run out, correctly responded that the
applicant is the
dominus litis
. The respondents are brought to
Court for an opposed motion whereby relief, if granted on the same
day, would remain effective
for less than 10 days.
[18]
The applicant's actions in pursuing the relief, despite the factual
disputes, for a short period of relief
does not enable it to escape
the general principle that the costs should follow the result.
[19]
I accordingly make the following order:
19.1
The applicant is given leave to withdraw the application.
19.2
The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application.
ACTING
JUDGE OLIFF
Case
Information
Date
of Hearing
: 19 January 2026
Date
of Judgment
: 23 January 2026
Appearances
Counsel
for the Plaintiff/ Applicant / Appellant : Ms S
Moodley
Instructed
by
: Suveshin & Co. Inc.
Suite 5, Braehead
Office Park
1 Old Main Road, Kloof
Ref: S Moodley/S056
Tel: 031-8323348
Email:
suveshinm@outlook.com
Counsel
for the Defendant/ Respondent
: Mr N
Moosa
Instructed
by
:Sholan Patrick Ramkisen
The First Respondent
36 Alexander Road,
Pinetown
Spicy Transport CC
The Second Respondent
36 Alexander Road,
Pinetown
Ref:
104
Email:
Admin@arifmahomed.co.za