Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Der Kooi and Another (2025-077606) [2025] ZAGPPHC 640 (20 June 2025)

Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Der Kooi and Another (2025-077606) [2025] ZAGPPHC 640 (20 June 2025)

The application was struck from the urgent roll because the Applicants failed to demonstrate genuine urgency. They were aware of the First Respondent's employment with the Second Respondent for approximately ten weeks before launching the application and did not take any steps to enforce the restraint of trade or seek undertakings during that period. The urgency was therefore self-created. Furthermore, the Applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of ongoing harm or risk justifying a final interdict. The restraint of trade clause relied upon was not clearly applicable to the security industry and appeared to be copied from a contract in a different sector, raising substantive doubts...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 640
Parties
Applicant: Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Kilnerpark Security CC; Respondent: Ansehelise Van Der Kooi; Respondent: Brinant Group Moot Branch
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2025
Case Number
2025-077606
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Final Interdict
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent roll; costs awarded against the Applicants.
Judges
N. Rajab-Budlender
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Urgent Interdict, Employment Contract, Confidential Information, Unlawful Competition
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Urgent Interdict Employment Contract Confidential Information Unlawful Competition

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kilnerpark Security CC

Applicant

Ansehelise Van Der Kooi

Respondent

Brinant Group Moot Branch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application qualifies for urgent relief on the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is enforceable against the First Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants have established ongoing harm or risk justifying a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck from the urgent roll because the Applicants failed to demonstrate genuine urgency. They were aware of the First Respondent's employment with the Second Respondent for approximately ten weeks before launching the application and did not take any steps to enforce the restraint of trade or seek undertakings during that period. The urgency was therefore self-created. Furthermore, the Applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of ongoing harm or risk justifying a final interdict. The restraint of trade clause relied upon was not clearly applicable to the security industry and appeared to be copied from a contract in a different sector, raising substantive doubts...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent roll; costs awarded against the Applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the urgent roll.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the Respondents' costs on Scale C.