1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTE NG DIVISION, PRETORIA
JUDGMENT
[LEAVE TO APPEAL ]
CASE NO : 80689 / 2026
DATE . 01 06.2026
DELETE WHICHEVER S t>-JOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE Yef NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES ~ S / NO
In the m atter between
ALLAN DE OLIVEIRA
PACU MARKETING
And
EKM EXPORTS (PTY ) LTD
(3) REVISED ......-
EKM EXPORTS AFRICA (PTY ) LTD
J U D G M E NT
[LEAVE TO APPEAL]
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J ·
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
In matter 2026 / 080689 . the respondents in the
application. now the applicants In the application for leave
to a ppeal , appeals against the whole of my judgment and
order delivered on 6 May 2026 In that order an InterIm
interdict was granted against the respondents
The heart of the application for leave to appeal Is that
the facts upon which the Judgment seems to be premised
were lacking in the application . and accordingly no relief
80689 /2026_01 06 2026 I AVS
2 JUDGMENT
[LEAVE TO APPEAL]
ought to have been granted A "piggy heart" in that regard
is that, vis-a-vis the second applicant, It was a non-trading
company, and hence it had no rights that required any
protection .
The gist of the main submission was that the first
respondent had all the knowledge and contacts prior to him
joining the applicant. and he was entitled to whenever he
leaves to pick up those relationships and to continue
What Is telling In the submission is that nothing is
10 said or dealt with about the first respondents' systematic
approach that was undertaken in his conduct prior to him
leaving The reason for him leaving the applicant was
merely being a disgruntled employee being promised the
universe and not getting anything When a new opportunity
came about , he grabbed that with both hands .
That is the one scenario that the respondent . and
particularly the first respondent seeks to point out In his
opposition to the applIcatIon . But he does not deal with his
systematic collecting / downloading of information The only
20 query raised there Is whether that is conf1dent1al
information . has some economic value etc . which is laid at
the door of the applicants to have shown and proven
I have carefully considered the application for leave
to appeal. I have carefully considered the respondents'
heads of argument in support of its application for leave to
80689/2026_01 .06 2026 I AVS
3 JUDGMENT
[LEAVE TO APPEAL ]
appeal I have carefully considered the able argument of
Mr Vorster on behalf of the respondents .
And having again considered my judgment ,
considering the critIcIsm levelled against it . in particular
those issues that apparently are lacking in substance and
factual findings . I am not persuaded that another Court
would in all probabilities come to a different conc lusion than
have come to .
The applicant for leave to appeal , the respondent ,
10 seeks leave to the full bench or the full Court of this
division . Although there Is one aspect which is submitted to
be of some interest to the Supreme Court of Appea l, but
nevertheless . the respondents are confident that the full
Court of this division will indeed come to a different
conclusion .
20
I have carefully considered the ambit of my order ,
whether it Is a fina l order clothed In language of an interim
interdict. On considering my judgment again , I am not
persuaded that I had erred In that regard .
The mere fact that look ing in t he future whether 1f
there is a transgression It would warrant an appl ication for
contempt. That is not a basis to approach the character of
an order , whether it Is interim or final.
One of the directions granted in the order was the
institution of an action with in the time limit. falling which ,
80689 /2026_01 06 202 6 I AVS
4 JUDGMENT
[LEAVE TO APPEAL]
the order would lapse That can never be a final order . it
can only be an interim order
If a broad approach is to be followed when
considering the character of an interim v1s-a-v1s a final
irrespective of the language used. the ma1or1ty of so -called
in terim interdicts would be final in effect It would have
some prohibition that may have a consequential disastrous
effect upon the party so interdicted
As recorded earlier. I am not persuaded that a full
10 Court of this d ivision would indeed come to a different
conclusion than I had come Accordingly, the appl cation
for leave to appear is dismissed with costs , such costs to
be taxed on scale C .
THUIZEN J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
80689/2026_01 06 2026 AVS