1
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG
CASE NO: 5063/2025
In the matter between:
DISPRO TECH SA (PTY) LTD Applicant
AND
SOOT SCIENCE (PTY) LTD Respondent
DATE OF HEARING : 16 February 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08 April 2026
FOR THE APPLICANT : Adv. Goosen
FOR THE RESPONDENT : Adv. Wessels
JUDGMENT
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives via email. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 08 April 2026.
Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates: NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: NO
2
ORDER
Resultantly, the following order is made:
(i) T he s econd and third respondent s are interdicted and restrained from
disclosing directly or indirectly to any person or entity, any confidential
information they gained access to, by virtue of their appointment and
employment with the applicant.
(ii) T he f irst, second and third respondents (the "respondents") are
interdicted and restrained from utilizing any information the s econd and
third respondents gained access to, by virtue of the second and third
respondents appointment by and employment with the applicant and which
they then shared and disclosed to the first respondent, for their or its direct or
indirect personal gain.
(iii) The respondents are ordered forthwith to:
(a) return all confidential information which the a pplicant provided to the
second and third respondents during the course of their employment
with the applicant and to delete and destroy all electronic copies thereof
from the respondents’ computers and/or electronic storage devices;
(b) return any other physical documentation of whatever nature pertaining
to the applicant's client(s) and/or supplier(s) that the second and third
respondents serviced and/or had contact with on behalf of the applicant
(the applicant’s client(s) and supplier(s)”) during their terms of the
employment with the applicant, from commencement thereof until the
27th of June 2025, and to delete or destroy all electronic copies thereof
from the respondents’ computers and or electronic storage devices.
3
(iv) The respondents are interdicted and restrained from unlawfully competing
with the applicant for eighteen (18) months for date of this judgment.
(v) The respondents are ordered to pay the cost of this application on an
attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to
be absolved.
JUDGMENT
Summary
‘Springboarding’ of a company to compete with the company whose resources,
time, expenses were used – unfairness of the competition – restraint of trade
and fiduciary duties owed by the employee in position of trust to erstwhile
employer company.
HENDRICKS JP
[1] In this application, the applicant prays for an order in the following terms
against the respondents:
“2. Interdicting and restraining the Second and Third Respondents from
disclosing directly or indirectly to any person or entity, any confidential
information they gained access to, by virtue of their appointment and
employment with the Applicant.
3. Interdicting and restraining the First, Second and Third Respondents (the
"Respondents") from utilizing any information the Second and Third
Respondents gained access to, by virtue of the Second and Third
Respondents appointment by and employment with the Applicant and which
they then shared and disclosed to the Third Respondent, for their or its direct
or indirect personal gain.
4
4. Ordering the Respondents to forthwith:
4.1 return all confidential information which the Applicant provided to the
Second and Third Respondents during the course of their employment
with the Applicant and to delete and destroy all electronic copies thereof
from the Respondents’ computers and/or electronic storage devices;
4.2 return any other physical documentation of whatever nature pertaining
to the Applicant's client(s) and/or supplier(s) that the Second and Third
Respondents serviced and/or had contact with on behalf of the
Applicant (the Applicant’s client(s) and supplier(s)”) during the terms of
the employment with the Applicant, from commencement thereof until
the 27th of June 2025, and to delete or destroy all electronic thereof
from the Respondents’ computers and or electronic storage devices.
5. Interdicting and restraining the Respondents from unlawfully competing with
the Applicant.
6. Ordering the Respondents to pay the cost of this application on an attorney
and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved.”
[2] The applicant, a private company duly registered, is doing business of
emission gas testing which consists of the measurement and analysis of
diesel particulate matter (DPM) produced by a diesel engine, especially in
the mining industry. It was the first and only of its kind in the N orth West
Province and also in South Africa. The m ethodology was invented and
developed by the sole shareholder of the applicant, Mr. Deon Du Preez .
In developing its business model, the applicant engaged with a German
based company called Saxon, in order to acquire equipment.
5
[3] The second and third respondents , who were in the employ of the
applicant and that time, signed an agreement with Saxon on behalf of the
applicant. T hey were fully aware of the exclusive distribution rights
acquired in terms of this agreement. As a result of their employment with
the applicant, they became well-acquainted with the products and service
offered by Saxon , as well as the employees at Saxon. They also
underwent training at Saxon in Germany. This was at the expense of the
applicant and to the exclusive benefit of the applicant.
[4] In order to optimize the use of the Saxon equipment, the applicant
developed special software in conjunction with the information technology
(IT) specialist, Kopasa. This was custom -made software that was
developed for the applicant. The core intellectual property and value of
the software lies in the applicants ’ propriety method of enabling
communication with the Saxon equipment, which was an industry first.
The unique value of the software is independent derived protocols that
allows communication with the Saxon equipment which was achieved only
after significant investment of resources and technical expertise. Although
Saxon supply standard ized software with the selling of equipment, its
software is not the same as that developed by the applicant.
[5] The second and third respondents have left the employ of the applicant
and are part of the first respondent and offers the same unique product
and service as the applicant . This within days after they left their
employment with the applicant. The applicant states that because of the
access to information the second and third respondent had when
employed by the applicant, they used it to ‘springboard ’ the business of
6
the first respondent, without the first respondent investing any resources,
time and also without incurring any expenses. It provides the first
respondent as competitor an opportunity to comp ete with the applicant
and to ‘springboard’ its business without the need to make the necessary
investment in time and resources.
[6] The second respondent signed an employment contract with the applicant
on 01 August 2020 and was employed as a Technician
Supervisor/Technician. In terms of the contract, the second respondent
undertook to refrain from disclosing any confidential information to any
third party. He left the employ of the applicant on 27 July 2025. W hilst
occupying this position, the second respondent had full , detailed access
to all the applicants businesses, including its unique business model, the
cliental base, employees and software specifically developed for the
applicants’ operational needs.
[7] On 01 January 2023 the applicant employed the third respondent as a
senior engine and data analysis specialist . No written contract of
employment was concluded between the applicant and the third
respondent. Like the second respondent, the third respondent also had
access to the applicants ’ unique business model, the applicants clients,
employees and specifically developed software for operation of the Saxon
equipment. T he applicant alleged that both the second and third
respondents had a fiduciary duty towards the applicant which stems from
their employment with the applicant, to act in the interests of the applicant
and not to act in any manner that would be prejudicial to the applicant.
7
[8] F urthermore, to not further their own or anybody else's interest at the
expense of the applicant. This includes not to utilize the applicants ’
confidential information in competition and at the expense of the applicant.
This, so the applicant content, were not only applicable whilst the second
and third respondent were in the employ of the applicant, but also after
they had left their employment with the applicant. The third respondent
also resigned from his employment with the applicant on 27 June 2025.
To reiterate, both the second and third respondents had intimate
knowledge of the applicants’ business and customer /client connections,
which they build up over the period of their employment with the applicant.
[9] There were some turbulence experienced in the employment relationship
between the third respondent and the applicants ’ sole director. On 03
March 2025 , due to concerns around the possible abuse of the
confidential information of the applicant, the third respondent was
suspended. It was alleged that he was attempting to use the applicant as
a ‘springboard’. This was as a result of him inter alia asking Kopasa to
make certain changes to the applicant s’ software, which fell outside the
applicants’ business model. An investigation was conducted and on his
laptop was found a document which was saved on 15 October 2024. It
appears that this document was a budget seemingly for a new company
and it included purchase of Saxon equipment. This document was titled
“Dispro 2 O Budget”, which refers to the name of the applicant. Following
on the investigations, meetings were held with the second and third
respondents, who vehemently denied that they were planning to start a
competitor company to the applicant. As a result of the assurance given,
the third respondents’ suspension was lifted.
8
[10] However, on 15 May 2025 the third respondent emailed to himself a copy
of the applicant s’ unique software, although he was not authorized to
access the software and had no reason to possess same. They both
tendered their resignations on 02 June 2025 but remained in the employ
of the applicant until 27 June 2025. Applicants ’ attorney sent a letter to
them stating amongst others that they should not me ddle in the
contractual relationship which the applicant has with its clients and
employees; and they were prohibited from making use of the applicants ’
confidential information and/or intellectual property including the software
and programming.
[11] The first respondent was incorporated on 08 July 2025, some eleven (11)
days after the seco nd and thi rd respondents left the employ of the
applicant. On 28 August 2025 the applicant presented at Impala Platinum
its ‘Service and Supply Proposal’. The second and third respondents were
also present, presenting an emission test demonstration.
[12] It was subsequently established that the second and third respondents
contacted Valterra Platinum, one of the applicants’ clients and delivered a
proposal to them for emission gas testing. The proposal was that of the
first respondent. A copy of the proposal was obtained. It was established
that the first respondent employ s the applicants ’ business mode l;
methodology; equipment and software. It is evident that the first
respondent has duplicated the applicant's business model and the second
and third respondents are using the applicants’ confidential information to
‘springboard’ the first respondent. Comparing the first respondents ’
proposal to Impala with that of the applicant, the similarities we re
9
abundantly clear. It was virtually impossible for the respondents to develop
their own independen t software within a matter of weeks. This much is
clear. It is quite obvious that the respondents are in possession of the
applicants’ software. The ineluctable deduction is that the first respondent
came to be in possession of the applicants’ unique software as a result of
the third respondent who emailed same to himself on 15 May 2025.
[13] It is irrefutable from the first respondent's presentation that it is using
Saxon equipment under circumstances where the applicant has the sole
distribution rights of Saxon equipment in Africa. T he second and third
respondents are aware of this fact because they signed and entered into
the agreement with Saxon on behalf of the applicant, and they were fully
aware of the terms of the s aid agreement. The respondents purchased
equipment from Saxon well-knowing that they are in breach of the
agreement between Saxon and the applicant. They breach their
confidentiality obligations and fiduciary duty
1 towards the applicant. The
second and third respondents have also started to contact the applicants’
clients. The applicants sought an undertaking from the respondents that
they must desist in utilizing the confidential information obtained
unlawfully from the applicant and refrain from approaching the applicants’
clients. This was however to no avail. On the contrary, they stated in a
letter that it is unlikely that they will take any fiduciary claims serious.
[14] Of crucial importance, the first respondent does not deny in the letter that
the respondents are ‘springboarding’ the business of the first respondent,
1 See: Meter Products Holdings Ltd v Venter and Another 1993 (1) SA 409 (W).
10
by using confidential information and the unique software of the applicant;
are meddling with the client relationship of the applicant ; and purchase
Saxon equipment.
[15] ‘Springboarding ’ entails not starting at the beginning a t developing a
technique, process, piece of equipment or product, but using as a starting
point th e fruits of someone else's labour. Although the springboard
concept applies in regard to confidential information, the misuse of the
fruits of someone else's labour may be regarded in a suitable case as
unlawful even where the information copied is not conf idential. This was
the case in Schultz v Butt
2 where the boat hull designed by the plaintiff
and copied by the defendant was found not to be confidential, because it
was in public domain. But the copying of it, as a ‘springboard’, was
regarded as unlawful
3.
[16] T he applicant seeks an interdict against the second and third respondents
not to ‘springboard’ the first respondent into unlawful competition against
the applicant by using confi dential information they gained from the
applicant. It is undeniable that the second and third respondents had
intimate knowledge of the operations of the applicant. They were in senior
managerial positions. They entered into contracts for and on behalf of the
applicant with amongst others Saxon, in Germany. Due to the positions
they held in the applicant, they had intimate knowledge of the client base
of the applicant. They approached Impala Platinum and Valterra Platinum
who are clients of the applicant . The second and third respondents
2 1986 (3) SA 667 (A)
3 Waste Products Utilisation (Pty) Ltd v Wilkes and Another 2023 (2) SA 515 (WLD) par G-I.
11
created the first respondents ’ business in direct competition with the
applicant, no more than eleven (11) days after they left their employment
with the applicant. This is not simply a case of restraint of trade, it is more.
[17] The stance adopted by the seco nd and thi rd respondents that the first
respondent is not in unlawful competition with the applicant is incorrect.
This contention misses the very point of ‘springboarding’. Whilst it may not
be that the competition by a competitor company is per se unlawful, the
‘springboarding’ of the competitor at the expense of the applicant cannot
be condoned. The usage of confidential material of the applicant to start-
off a competitive opponent company is unlawful. Whilst the third
respondent may use his skills and expertise that he gained or acquired
even before his employment with the applicant, to the advantage of the
first respondent, it is not as simple as that. This case concern the usage
of confidential information, m ethodology, and client base unlawfully
obtained to the advantage of the first respondent and to the d etriment of
the applicant.
[18] The submission by the second and third respondent s that the first
respondent uses its own software which they themselves developed is
highly improbable, especially given the very short space of time of merely
eleven (11) days. The evidence proves the contrary. The first respondent
acquired Saxon equipment in direct conflict of the agreement reached
between the applicant and Saxon which they themselves signed, giving
the applicant the exclusive distribution rights of Saxon equipment in Africa.
Furthermore, the Saxon equipment and accompanying software on its
own is insufficient for the needs of the emission gas testing. Th is, the
12
second and thi rd respondent know s very well. That is why the third
respondent emailed the software to himself on 15 May 2025, shortly
before he left the employ of the applicant. This coupled with the fact that
they approached the applicant's clients Impala Platinum and Valterra
Platinum4 uncontravertedly proves that they ‘springboarded’ the first
respondent w ith the confidential information and software which they
obtained unlawfully from the applicant 5. This amounts to unlawful
competition and it justify the granting of an interdict 6; a so-called
‘springboard’ interdict.
[19] I am fortified in my view that the second and third respondents could not
have incorporated the first respondent within eleven ( 11) days after they
have resigned from the applicant, as a competitor to the applicant, without
using the confidential information of the applicant, in direct competition
with the applicant. They even approach clients of the applicant in an
attempt to poach them from the applicant. Furthermore, they even bought
Saxon equipment well -knowing that only the applicant has sole
distribution rights of Saxon equipment in Africa. The conduct of the
respondents must be interdicted.
[20] Insofar as costs are concerned, it should follow the result and be awarded
in favour of the successful litigant, the applicant. The applicant also prayed
for a punitive costs order on an attorney -and-client scale. It is quite
apparent that the conduct of the respondents are reprehensible. They
4 See: Van Castricum v Theunissen and Another 1993 (2) SA 726 (SCA).
5 See: Pextmart CC and Others v H Mocke Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another 2019 (3) SA 117 (SCA).
6 See: Technoserve Medium Voltage (Pty) Ltd vs Technical Reticulation Services (Pty) Ltd and Others
[2025] ZAWCHC 165 (15 April 2025).
13
acted unlawfully. Furthermore, when they were asked to desist with their
unlawful conduct, they stated that they are not taking any fiduciary duties
serious, which is a total disregard for lawful conduct. This cannot be
condoned. This Court will mark its disquiet by awarding costs on a punitive
scale, which is justified. Having regard to the exceptional circumstances
of this case, a costs order on the scale as between attorney-and-client is
justified. There is no reason why the applicant should be out of pocket for
the unlawful conduct of the respondents.
Order
[21] Resultantly, the following order is made:
(i) T he second and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from
disclosing directly or indirectly to any person or entity, any confidential
information they gained access to, by virtue of their appointment and
employment with the applicant.
(ii) T he f irst, second and third respondents (the "respondents") are
interdicted and restrained from utilizing any information the second and
third respondents gained access to, by virtue of the second and third
respondents appointment by and employment with the applicant and
which they then shared and disclosed to the first respondent, for their or
its direct or indirect personal gain.
(iii) The respondents are ordered forthwith to:
(a) return all confidential information which the a pplicant provided
to the second and third respondents during the course of their
employment with the a pplicant and to delete and destroy all
electronic copies thereof from the respondents' computers and/or
electronic storage devices;
(b) return any other physical documentation of whatever nature
pertaining to the applicant's client(s) and/or supplier(s) that the
second and third respondents serviced and/or had contact with on
behalf of the applicant (the applicant's client(s) and supplier(s)")
during their terms of the employment with the applicant, from
commencement thereof until the 27th of June 2025, and to delete
or destroy all electronic copies thereof from the respondents'
computers and or electronic storage devices.
(vi) The respondents are interdicted and restrained from unlawfully
competing with the applicant for eighteen (18) months for date of this
judgment.
(vii) The respondents are ordered to pay the cost of this application on an
attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other
to be absolved.
R D HENDRICKS
JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT,
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
14