[51] In my view, the respondents have been substantially successful in opposing the return day, and the
employment of two counsel by the respondents was warranted.
[52] In all of the circumstances, I make the following orders:
52.1 I direct the supervising attorney, assisted by the computer expert Mr Wood and the Sheriff of the above
honourable court, to differentiate between all items under attachment other than the Lotus Notes
System, and the Lotus Notes System.
52.2 The Lotus Notes System is to remain under the present attachment order, pending the outcome of the
application envisaged in paragraph C10.2 of the notice of motion.
52.3 The rule in regard to all other items under attachment is discharged, and the Sheriff is directed to return
to the respondents all such items.
52.4 The computer expert, Michael James Wood, is authorised to make a copy of the second respondent's
"Lotus Notes Tracking System", a copy of which is presently in the possession of the Sheriff, and to hand
same to an independent computer expert to be appointed by the applicants by not later than 12h00 on
19 March 2001. Such expert will be entitled to report to the applicants and their legal advisers on the
similarities and differences between the said system and the information therein contained, and the first
applicant's Lotus Notes System and the information therein contained, insofar as such similarities and
differences may be relevant to the present proceedings, but shall otherwise keep the features of the
system and the information therein contained confidential.
52.5 In relation to the documents and records which were requested in the respondents' notices in terms of
Rules 35(12) and 35(14) dated 12 March 2001, the applicants are ordered, by 18h00 on 19 March 2001,
to deliver a copy, in electronic or magnetic format, of each of the items requested in terms of those
notices and which are alleged to be in the possession of the respondents to an independent computer
expert to be appointed by the respondents and will at the same time furnish such independent expert
with such passwords and instructions as may be necessary in order to enable him to open and examine
each document. (The said expert shall be entitled to
Page 207 of [2001] 3 All SA 194 (C)
report to the respondents and their legal advisers on the contents of each such document to the extent
that the contents thereof may be relevant to the present matter, but shall otherwise keep the contents
thereof confidential.)
52.6 The application for interdictory relief envisaged in paragraph C10.1, the delivery relief envisaged in
paragraph C10.2 and the further relief referred to in paragraphs C10.3 to C10.5 and C11 of the notice of
motion, are postponed for hearing in the Fourth Division on 18 April 2001.
52.7 In relation to the relief envisaged in paragraphs C10.1 to C10.5 of the notice of motion:
52.7.1 The respondents are ordered to file their answering affidavits by 27 March 2001.
52.7.2 The applicants are ordered to file their replying affidavits by 3 April 2001.
52.7.3 The applicants are ordered to file their heads of argument by 9 April 2001.
52.7.4 The respondents are ordered to file their heads of argument by 12 April 2001.
52.8 The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the opposition of the respondents, such costs to include
the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, save that the costs occasioned by the hearing
on 16 March 2001 are reserved for the court hearing the interdictory relief and the delivery relief on 18
April 2001.
For the applicants:
RWF McWilliam SC
For the respondents:
Hodes PB SC and G Myburgh
Footnotes
1
2
Also reported at [2000] 4 All SA 265 (E) Ed.
Also reported at [1996] 2 All SA 17 (C) Ed.