M.M. Operations Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 9; C of A CIV) [1994] LSCA 130 (28 July 1994)

M.M. Operations Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 9; C of A CIV) [1994] LSCA 130 (28 July 1994)

The appellants were still in the respondent's employ during the notice period, and the High Court correctly confirmed the interdict as to competition during employment. The interdict was too broad as originally framed and was narrowed to apply only during employment.

Citation
[1994] LSCA 130
Parties
Appellant: M. M. Operations Services (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Paul Mokhethi; Appellant: Sello Matete; Respondent: Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
28 July 1994
Case Number
CIV/APN 9 ; C of A CIV
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with amendment
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Interdicts, Employment Termination, Competition Restraint
Source Language
English
Employment Law Civil Procedure Urgent Applications Interdicts Employment Termination Competition Restraint

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. M. Operations Services (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Paul Mokhethi

Appellant

Sello Matete

Appellant

Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting an urgent interim interdict against the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the employment of the 2nd and 3rd appellants had ceased upon their giving notice of resignation and entitlement to leave.
  3. 3 Whether the scope of the interdict was overly broad and unjustifiably restricted competition.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were still in the respondent's employ during the notice period, and the High Court correctly confirmed the interdict as to competition during employment. The interdict was too broad as originally framed and was narrowed to apply only during employment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with amendment

Orders

  • Prayer 1(b) of the interdict amended to apply only during employment by the applicant.
  • Appellants to pay the costs.