The Applicants sought Anton Piller relief as well as interim attachment relief in the present matter. When the matter appeared before the court a quo, the judge issued a rule nisi in Applicants' favor. In response, the Respondents argued that the rule should be discharged on the following grounds. Firstly, with regard to the interim attachmentrelief, it was contended that there was no evidence in any of the Applicants' affidavits that any of the Respondents had possession of the items in which the Applicants claimed a proprietary interest. In addition, it was argued that there had not been compliance with the requirements for an ex parte order. These requirements included an allegation that the items in question would be irreparably harmed if not attached pendent lite and an allegation that the court order would be defeated if notice was given to the Respondents. With regard to the Anton Pillerrelief, the Respondents contended that the Applicants had failed to specify the documents which constituted vital evidence. In other words, the order was too widely framed. It was also argued that the Applicants had failed to establish a real and well­founded apprehension that the evidence might be hidden or destroyed by the time the matter went to trial. Finally, it was argued that the Applicants had not discharged the onus of establishing that the evidence could not be obtained from another source.