CTP Ltd. and Others v Argus Holdings Ltd. and Another (418/93) [1995] ZASCA 32; 1995 (4) SA 774 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 398 (A) (29 March 1995)

CTP Ltd. and Others v Argus Holdings Ltd. and Another (418/93) [1995] ZASCA 32; 1995 (4) SA 774 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 398 (A) (29 March 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the restraints contained in the 1980 and 1985 agreements were enforceable at the instance of the appellants. The court found that the restraints, although indefinite in duration, were not contrary to public policy because they protected legitimate business interests arising from the joint venture and reciprocal arrangements between the parties. The court rejected the argument that the restraint clauses were void for vagueness, holding that the terms 'local newspaper' and 'regional newspaper' could be interpreted in light of the parties' business practices and the context of the agreements. The Focus inserts published by the respondents were found to...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 32
Parties
Appellant: CTP Limited; Appellant: Terrence Desmond Moolman; Appellant: Noel Malcolm Coburn; Appellant: Meredith David William Short; Respondent: Argus Holdings Limited; Respondent: Argus Newspapers Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1995
Case Number
418/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division, Leave Granted by Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an interdict restraining the respondents from publishing the specified newspapers or any substantially similar publication, subject to leave to apply for amendment if circumstances materially change.
Judges
Corbett, EM Grosskopf, Smalberger, Nienaber, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Enforceability of Contracts, Public Policy, Vagueness in Contracts, Reciprocal Agreements
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Enforceability of Contracts Public Policy Vagueness in Contracts Reciprocal Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTP Limited

Appellant

Terrence Desmond Moolman

Appellant

Noel Malcolm Coburn

Appellant

Meredith David William Short

Appellant

Argus Holdings Limited

Respondent

Argus Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division, Leave Granted by Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraints on publishing contained in the 1980 and 1985 agreements are enforceable at the instance of the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the restraints are void for offending against public policy due to indefinite duration.
  3. 3 Whether the Focus inserts published by respondents constitute 'separate free newspapers' or 'local newspapers' under the agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the restraints contained in the 1980 and 1985 agreements were enforceable at the instance of the appellants. The court found that the restraints, although indefinite in duration, were not contrary to public policy because they protected legitimate business interests arising from the joint venture and reciprocal arrangements between the parties. The court rejected the argument that the restraint clauses were void for vagueness, holding that the terms 'local newspaper' and 'regional newspaper' could be interpreted in light of the parties' business practices and the context of the agreements. The Focus inserts published by the respondents were found to...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an interdict restraining the respondents from publishing the specified newspapers or any substantially similar publication, subject to leave to apply for amendment if circumstances materially change.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted and restrained from directly or indirectly publishing their newspapers known as the 'Southern Star/Focus', the 'Sandton Star', the 'Eastern Star/Focus', the 'Northern Star/Focus', the 'Western Star/Focus', or any newspaper substantially similar in nature and circulation.
  • Leave is granted to the respondents, jointly or severally, to approach the court, on due notice to the other parties and on good cause being shown that circumstances have materially changed, for an order rescinding or amending the above order.