THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
CASE NO: 460/06
Reportable
In the matter between:

MARIUS VAN NIEKERK
First Appellant
SWEEPRO BRUSH (PTY) LTD
Second Appellant

and

GERHARD ALBERTUS VAN NIEKERK
First Respondent
SWEEPA INSTRUMENTS (PTY) LTD
Second Respondent

Coram:
Harms ADP, Scott, Mthiyane, Van Heerden, JJA et Kgomo AJA

Heard:
14 September 2007

Delivered:
21 September 2007

Summary:
Anton Piller order – preservation of evidence – application for
setting aside of order granted ex parte – dismissal of
application – whether appealable.

Neutral citation: This judgment may be referred to as Van Niekerk &
Others v Van Niekerk & Another [2007] SCA 116 (RSA)

REASONS FOR ORDER

VAN HEERDEN JA:

Introduction
[1] This appeal was directed against an order of the Port Elizabeth High
Court (Liebenberg J), dismissing an application by the appellants for the
setting aside of an order for the preservation of evidence (commonly
referred to as an Anton Piller order) earlier granted by Jansen J.  An appli-
cation for leave to appeal against the whole of this order was dismissed by
Liebenberg J on the basis that the order was not appealable.  With leave
subsequently granted by this court, the appellants appealed to us.
[2] On 14 September 2007, after hearing argument, we struck this
appeal from the roll with costs, including the costs occasioned by the
employment of two counsel.  We indicated that reasons for our order would
follow in due course.  These are the reasons.
The test for appealability
[3] In Zweni v Minister of Law and Order (1993 (1) SA 523 (A) at
531H–533E), Harms AJA embarked on ‘a brief exposition and a critical
review of some of the general propositions commonly (and sometimes
loosely) advanced in the decided cases’ before summarising the following
‘three attributes’ of an appealable judgment or order (at 532J–-533A):

‘[F]irst, the decision must be final in effect and not susceptible of alteration by the
Court of first instance; second, it must be definitive of the rights of the parties;
and, third, it must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of
the relief claimed in the main proceedings.’
[4] Zweni’s case has been referred to and followed in numerous
subsequent decisions of this Court (see eg Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd &
Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) para 6 at 370C–371C and authorities there
cited ).
[5] The test as formulated in Zweni, although easy to state, is not
always easy to apply.  Thus, in Cronshaw & Another v Coin Security
Group (Pty) Ltd (1996 (3) SA 686 (A) at 690D-E), Schutz JA remarked
that ‘the question [as to when a decision is ‘interlocutory’, and thus not
appealable, or ‘final’, and thus appealable] is –
‘. . . a question that has vexed the minds of eminent lawyers for many centuries and the
answer has not always been the same.  The question is intrinsically difficult, and a
decision one way or the other may produce some unsatisfactory results.’
In similar vein, in Minister of Safety and Security & Another v Hamilton
(2001 (3) SA 50 para 4 at 52B), Cameron JA stated that the question of
which judgments, orders and rulings are appealable to this court ‘has
presented persisting complexity’.

[6] In considering the question of appealability, the underlying con-
sideration is that it is undesirable to have a piecemeal appellate disposal of
the issues in litigation and that it is advisable to limit appeals to certain
‘orders’. (See, eg, Pretoria Garrison Institutes v Danish Variety Products
(Pty) Ltd 1948 (1) SA 839 (A) at 866–871; Guardian National Insurance
Co Ltd v Searle NO 1999 (3) SA 296 (SCA) at 301B–D.)
[7] Generally speaking, the balance of convenience more often than not
requires that the case be brought to a conclusion at the first level and the
whole case then be appealed (see Take and Save Trading CC & Others v
Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2004 (4) SA 1 (SCA) para 4 at 5D).  Thus, in the
Guardian National case (at 301B-C), Howie JA held that –
‘As previous decisions of this Court indicate, there are still sound grounds for a
basic approach which avoids the piecemeal appellate disposal of the issues in
litigation. It is unnecessarily expensive and generally it is desirable, for obvious
reasons, that such issues be resolved by the same Court and at one and the same
time.’
[8] Howie JA proceeded to point out that, where this approach has been
relaxed, it has been because the judicial decisions in question – ‘whether
referred to as judgments, orders, rulings or declarations’ – had the three
attributes referred to in Zweni’s case (above, loc cit).

Applying the test to an Anton Piller order
[9] Whether the grant of an Anton Piller order is appealable or not has
not thus far pertinently been decided by this court.  Appeals concerning
Anton Piller orders which have thus far reached this court have all
concerned refusal by the court a quo of relief (see, eg, Universal City
Studios Inc v Network Video 1986 (2) SA 734 (A); Jafta v Minister of Law
and Order 1991 (2) SA 286 (A); Shoba v Officer Commanding, Temporary
Police Camp, Wagendrift Dam, & Another; Maphanga v Officer
Commanding, South African Police Murder and Robbery Unit, Pieter-
maritzburg, & Others 1995 (4) SA 1 (A); Memory Institute SA CC v
Hansen 2004 (2) SA 630 (SCA)) and the question of appealability has not
arisen, presumably because it is settled law that the refusal, but not the
granting, of interim interdicts is appealable (see, eg, African Wanderers
Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Wanderers Football Club 1977 (2) SA 38 (A) at
47C–48H), Cronshaw’s case at 690B–691G; Knox D’Arcy Ltd & Others v
Jamieson & Others 1996 (4) SA 348 (A) at 356H–360D).
[10] As repeatedly emphasised by this court, an Anton Piller order is
directed at the preservation of vital evidence that might otherwise be lost.
It will be granted, inter alia where ‘there is a real and well-founded
apprehension that this evidence may be hidden or destroyed or in some

manner be spirited away by the time the case comes to trial or to the stage
of discovery’ (Shoba’s case at 15G–16D; and cf also the Memory Institute
case para 3 at 633E–F).
[11] The order granted in this case  – as most other orders of this kind –
consists, on the one hand, of procedural directions and safeguards and, on
the other, of orders aimed at obtaining evidence to be preserved. Its
provisions have nothing to do with the substantive rights of the parties in
the causes of action which are foreshadowed in the papers. As pointed out
by Conradie J in Hall & Another v Heyns & Others 1991 (1) SA 381 (C) at
385D –
‘The relief which it [an Anton Piller order] affords serves no end in itself. Its only
utility is that it assists the successful applicant by ensuring the greater effective-
ness of some other proceedings in which substantive relief is claimed. It does not
dispose of any issue in those proceedings.’
[12] In the circumstances, counsel for the respondents argued that the
relief granted in this case falls short of all three of the requirements for
appealability set out in Zweni’s case.  Counsel relied, inter alia, on the
judgment of Froneman J in The Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Smit &
Others (unreported judgment in SECLD Case No 678/02), where the
learned judge refused leave to appeal against the Anton Piller order

previously granted by him (see The Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Smit &
Others 2004 (1) SA 215 (SEC)) on the basis that the order was not
appealable.  In his judgment refusing leave to appeal, Liebenberg J was
‘unable to hold that Froneman J was clearly wrong in his approach’.
[13] Counsel for the appellants contended that both these decisions are
wrong and should be overruled.  Relying on the judgments of this court in
Phillips & Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2003 (6) SA
447 (SCA) and Metlika Trading Ltd & Others v Commissioner, South
African Revenue Service 2005 (3) SA 1 (SCA), counsel sought to persuade
us that the grant of Anton Piller relief is not akin to the grant of an interim
interdict, and that the African Wanderers and Cronshaw cases are thus
distinguishable.   As in the Cronshaw case, counsel stressed the prejudice
suffered by the respondents by the grant of the Anton Piller order and
argued that this order had ‘final jurisdictional effect’ in the sense referred
to by this court in Phillips para 19 at 452I–453A).
[14] I do not agree.  In my view, the grant of an Anton Piller order is
indeed akin to the grant of an interim interdict and I am unpersuaded that
the principles laid down in (inter alia) Cronshaw’s case are not directly
applicable to the present situation.  As was pointed out by Grosskopf JA in
Knox d’Arcy (above, at 359F–360B), albeit obiter:

‘As far back as Prentice v Smith (1889) 3 SAR 28 the Court held (at 29) that an order
granting an interim interdict “is an interlocutory order, and that consequently there can
be no appeal”.  On the whole this view was followed in the Provincial Divisions (see
Loggenberg v Beare 1930 TPD 714; Davis v Preiss & Co (supra) [1944 CPD 108]; and
the authorities referred to in those cases) and, ultimately, prevailed in the Appellate
Division (African Wanderers Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Wanderers football Club 1977
(2) SA 38 (A) at 46H-47A and Cronshaw’s case supra).  Some Judges have questioned
the validity of the distinction between the refusal and the grant of an interim interdict.
This distinction cannot be justified by the nature of the proceedings giving rise to the
decision – it is the same in both cases (see, for example, Davis v Preiss & Co (supra at
118 per Fagan J)).  And it may be argued that the prejudice suffered by the unsuccessful
party also does not differ in principle.  See Davis’ case supra at 112–113 (De Villiers J).
However, in Loggenberg’s case supra, Greenberg J expressed the view (at 723) that
“there is in fact a real distinction on the question of irreparability between the case of a
granting of a temporary interdict and the refusal of a temporary interdict”.  There may
also be a difference in the finality of the decision.  Thus, as stated above, the refusal of
an interim interdict is final.  It cannot be reversed on the same facts (I disregard the
possibility . . . of a refusal on some technical ground).  The same may not be true of the
grant of an interim interdict.  It may be open to the unsuccessful respondent to approach
the Court for an amelioration or setting aside of the interdict, even if the only new
circumstance is the practical experience of its operation.  And, apart from the theoretical
differences between the grant and the refusal of an interdict, there is also the practical
one, discussed in Cronshaw’s case . . . [at 691C–G], that an appeal against the grant of a
temporary interdict would often be inconsistent with the very purpose of this remedy.’
[15] It should also be pointed out that the judgment in the Phillips case
largely concerned the interpretation of provisions of a certain statute (the
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998) and is thus inapplicable
on that basis. As regards Metlika Trading,, the interim order granted in that

case, ordering a party to take all necessary steps to procure the return of an
aircraft to South Africa, pending finalisation of an action launched against
(inter alia) that party by the applicant for the interim order, Streicher JA
held that, on the facts before the court, the interim order was final in its
effect in the sense required to render it appealable. As was pointed out by
Streicher JA (para 22 at 12D-E), ‘whether or not the aircraft [in which the
applicant for the interim order allegedly had an interest] should be returned
to South Africa and whether or not the other orders relating to the aircraft
should be granted is not an issue in the action pending which the interdict
was granted.’ The order with which we are here concerned is a largely
procedural one aimed at the preservation of evidence so as to ensure the
greater effectiveness of other proceedings in which substantive relief is or
will be claimed, and for the substantiation of which such evidence will be
vital (see the Shoba case at 15H–16B).    To my mind, the Metlika case is
not comparable and does not constitute an obstacle to the conclusion that
the preservation order under discussion is not appealable.
[16] In the result, we concluded that the order granted by Liebenberg J
refusing to set aside the original Anton Piller order is not appealable.  For
this reason, we struck the appeal from the roll with costs, including the
costs of two counsel.

B J VAN HEERDEN
JUDGE OF APPEAL
CONCUR:
HARMS JA
SCOTT JA
MTHIYANE JA
KGOMO AJA