REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
(2)
(3)
07 APRIL 2026
DATE
In the matter between:
MAJESTIC T/A SECURITY (PTY) LTD
and
FINDR (PTY) LTD
JUDGMENT
Case No: 060308-2026
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Page 1 of 5
[1] This is an urgent application for specific performance based on an exclusive
agency agreement ("the agreement") entered into between the Applicant and
Respondent, regarding the project known as the MAST Tower Project.
[2] In terms of the agreement, the Applicant is the excll,4Sive agent authorized to
market and sell the Respondent's product and services to the MAST Tower Project. In
turn, the Applicant's remuneration was derived from the Applicant's mark ups placed
on the Respondent's product when it was sold, and the mark up on the licensing fee.
[3] The Respondent attempts to suspend or cancel the said agreement unilaterally.
Further, and on or about the 13th of March 2026, the Applicant learned that the
Respondent was involved in deals made behind the Applicant's back, which would
result in the Applicant's loss of revenue. It was learned that such deals will be
completed by the 27th of March 2026, necessitating an application on an urgent basis.
[4] The urgency relied upon in this matter is one of commercial urgency. The
underlying basis of the current application is a clear right seeking to protect the
Applicant's protectable interest in enforcing the terms of the agreement. If the
Applicant were to proceed with this application to seek specific performance in the
ordinary course, it would defeat the very protection that the Applicant seeks to
safeguard.
[5) An application for condonation of the late filing of the Respondent's Answering
Affidavit was considered. The court directive published emphasised the affidavits to
be filed, indexed and paginated by no later than Saturday at 12:00 on 21 MARCH
2026, bearing the risk of being struck off. "No piece meal filing of Affidavits will be
allowed due to time constraints imposed by the nature of urgent court proceedings."
The Urgent Court is duty bound to regulate its process and proceedings.
Page2 of 5
[6] The Respondents did not file their Answering Affidavit timeously, and on the 24th
of March 2026 (3 days after the papers should have been filed), sent their Answering
Affidavit via email to the Judge's Secretary stating that they were unable to file same
on Caselines. On the date of hearing, the Respondent sought condonation for the late
filing of their Answering Affidavit.
[7] In considering whether condonation should be granted, the court in Grootboom
v National Prosecuting Authority and Another 1 highlighted that Condonation is not
merely for the taking: -
"It is now trite that condonation cannot be had for the mere asking. A party seeking
condonation 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. Of great significance, the explanation must be
reasonable enough to excuse the defaulf' 2
[8] In the present matter, the Respondent has failed to sufficiently account for the
delay. On this basis, condonation for the late filing of the Answering Affidavit was
refused.
(9) In granting the applicant interim relief, prayer 5 of the court order protects the
status quo of the Applicant's interests for a period of 60 days only, pending the
institution and finalisation of an action by the Applicant. This interim relief freezes the
position until a court decides where the right lies. It is the only remedy available, and
no other alternative or satisfactory remedy is present as there is a well- grounded
apprehension of harm. The balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim
relief. The issues of non-joinder are to be addressed in the main application.
1 (2014) 2 SA 68 (CC)
2 (2014) 2 SA 68 (CC) para 23
Page 3 of 5
[1 O] In TWK Agriculture Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Hoogveld Boerderybeleggings
(Pty) Ltd and Others3, the court, in considering the interests of justice, warned against
blindly adopting the standard of "interest of justice" as the foundational basis for
determining appealability. It noted that doing so "would put in place a regime that is
both unpredictable and open-ended '4. This approach, it explained, could prompt
litigants to seek leave to appeal prematurely, even where further proceedings are
required. The court underscored that "the doctrine offinality must figure as the central
principle of consideration when deciding whether a matter is appealable to this court. "5
[11] Given that the court order granted was interim in nature, providing for the
restoration of the status quo of the Applicant for only 60 days, the interim order is not
appealable as it does not amount to a final order.
[12] As a result, I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case for urgent
interim relief as set out above.
[13] Court Order:
[13.1] This is an interim order.
[13.2] The matter is found to be urgent as envisioned in Rule 6(12) of the
Uniform Rules of Court and non-compliance with the forms and relevant time
periods as set out in the Rules are condoned.
[13.3] In preserving the status quo, the Respondent is interdicted from
delivering any product for the MAST project and that stock for this purpose must
be delivered to the Applicant subject to the terms of the agreement as set out
in the founding Affidavit.
3 (273/2022) (2023] ZASCA 63 (5 May 2023)
4 (273/2022) [2023] ZASCA 63 (5 May 2023) at para 27
6 (273/2022 ) (2023] ZASCA 63 (5 May 2023) at para 30
Page 4 of 5
[13.4) That in relation to the Respondent's stock already delivered or delivered
hereafter for the MAST project, the Respondent must make available and
maintain their data platform to the Applicant and MAST subject to payment of
the monthly licensing fee and subject to the functioning of the data platform.
[13.5) Orders 3 and 4 above shall serve as an interim order with immediate
force and effect, pending the institution and finalisation of an action by the
Applicant , which must be instituted within 60 days from the date of this order, to
determine the issue regarding the exclusivity of the agreement between the
parties in so far as it related to the MAST project.
[13.6) The Respondent is ordered to pay the cost of the application, such cost
to include the cost of two counsel on Scale B.
R. FRANCIS-SUBBIAH
Judge of the Gauteng High court: Pretoria
Hearing : 26 March 2026
Judgment : 26 March 2026
Appearances
For Applicant:
Instructed by:
For Responden t:
Instructed by:
Adv. LF Taljard
S Morgan & Associates
Adv S Shawn
Myers Attorneys lncoprorated
Page 5 of 5