Cell C Ltd v MA

Accessing preserved evidence allows a former employer to obtain the necessary evidence and proof to institute legal action against former employees who colluded in causing substantial prejudice to the employer and in addition a caveat was placed against immovable property registered in the deeds office that would prevent them from alienating the property.


High court granted an order to allow the former employer accessing rights to the preserved evidence to enable a cause of action to be properly formulated.


(20424/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 253 (16 October 2020)


Granted application to access preserved private information for purposes of instituting legal action.


L T Modiba J.

Date of hearing: 28 September 2020
Date reasons for judgment were requested: 6 October 2020
Date reasons for judgment were furnished: 16 October 2020

Related books

Darcy du Toit et al Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide 6ed 925 pages (LexisNexis 2015) at

Darcy du Toit et al Labour Law Through The Cases – loose-leaf service updated 6 monthly (LexisNexis 2020) 


“[10] Cell C intends instituting legal action against Adamjee and Pillay but fears that by the time it requires them to make discovery, they would have destroyed the emails on their private email accounts as well as WhatsApp messages relating to the irregular procurement activities set out above. Hence, it sought and obtained rules nisi against them on an ex parte basis, which Wepener, J granted on 18 August 2020. The rules nisi have been executed. The evidence is in the custody of the sheriff as per Wepenaar J’s order.” . . . .

‘[12] A caveat placed against the respondents immovable property registered in the deeds office would prevent them from alienating it to defeat Cell C’s cause of action in the event that they lack sufficient funds to satisfy its substantial claim against them. Cell C’s apprehension that they may dissipate their assets to defeat its claim is reasonable and well-founded given their evasive response to it since it has discovered the alleged collusion.”

Quotations from judgment

Note: Footnotes omitted and emphasis added