Canize Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Theron and Others (2025/021910) [2025] ZALCJHB 183 (22 April 2025)

Canize Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Theron and Others (2025/021910) [2025] ZALCJHB 183 (22 April 2025)

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the restraint of trade agreement in favour of the second applicant, as there was no employment relationship between the second applicant and the respondents. The restraint agreement was concluded only between the first applicant and the respondents, and the first applicant failed to establish any protectable proprietary interest. The evidence showed that the first applicant was created solely to reduce bargaining council costs and had no independent trading functionality or income. As such, the first applicant could not demonstrate a breach or a proprietary interest worthy of protection. The application was dismissed for lack...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 183
Parties
Applicant: Canize Trading (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Transmart Express (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ashley Theron; Respondent: Erika Engelbrecht; Respondent: Leonie De Villiers; Respondent: Madelein Venter; Respondent: TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2025
Case Number
2025/021910
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order Application to Enforce Restraint of Trade Agreements
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish a protectable interest. Costs awarded against applicants on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Contract of Employment, Confidentiality Undertakings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Jurisdiction of Labour Court Contract of Employment Confidentiality Undertakings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canize Trading (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Transmart Express (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ashley Theron

Respondent

Erika Engelbrecht

Respondent

Leonie De Villiers

Respondent

Madelein Venter

Respondent

TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Order Application to Enforce Restraint of Trade Agreements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to enforce a restraint of trade agreement where the applicant is not the contractual employer?
  2. 2 Is the restraint of trade agreement enforceable by the holding company or only by the employer party to the contract?
  3. 3 Did the first applicant have a protectable proprietary interest to justify enforcement of the restraint?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the restraint of trade agreement in favour of the second applicant, as there was no employment relationship between the second applicant and the respondents. The restraint agreement was concluded only between the first applicant and the respondents, and the first applicant failed to establish any protectable proprietary interest. The evidence showed that the first applicant was created solely to reduce bargaining council costs and had no independent trading functionality or income. As such, the first applicant could not demonstrate a breach or a proprietary interest worthy of protection. The application was dismissed for lack...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish a protectable interest. Costs awarded against applicants on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The fourth respondent's special plea of jurisdiction succeeds, and the application by the second applicant is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The first applicant's application is dismissed.