Digiterra (Pty) Ltd v Mentz and Another (38845/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 370 (18 June 2014)

Digiterra (Pty) Ltd v Mentz and Another (38845/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 370 (18 June 2014)

The court found that the restraint of trade clause relied upon by the applicant was drafted in excessively broad and vague terms, lacking specificity and geographical limitation, and did not expressly prohibit competition or employment with competitors. The clause envisaged a reciprocal arrangement and was so wide as to be practically unenforceable. The contra preferentem rule applied against the applicant as the drafter of the agreement. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to the restraint of trade relief sought. However, the respondents conceded that the 1st respondent was bound by the confidentiality agreement, and the court granted an interdict to prevent breaches of...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 370
Parties
Applicant: Digiterra (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jacoba Wilhelmina Mentz; Respondent: Zertive Consulting Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Case Number
38845/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict and Rectification Application
Outcome
Interdict granted in respect of confidentiality agreement; remainder of relief dismissed; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
De Vries
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidentiality Agreement, Rectification of Contract, Interim Interdict
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidentiality Agreement Rectification of Contract Interim Interdict

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Digiterra (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jacoba Wilhelmina Mentz

Respondent

Zertive Consulting Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict and Rectification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment agreement should be rectified as sought by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent is interdicted from breaching the confidentiality agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint of trade clause is enforceable against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restraint of trade clause relied upon by the applicant was drafted in excessively broad and vague terms, lacking specificity and geographical limitation, and did not expressly prohibit competition or employment with competitors. The clause envisaged a reciprocal arrangement and was so wide as to be practically unenforceable. The contra preferentem rule applied against the applicant as the drafter of the agreement. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to the restraint of trade relief sought. However, the respondents conceded that the 1st respondent was bound by the confidentiality agreement, and the court granted an interdict to prevent breaches of...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted in respect of confidentiality agreement; remainder of relief dismissed; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The 1st respondent is interdicted from breaching the provisions of the confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties.
  • The 1st respondent is prohibited from communicating or discussing with any third party any information relating to the applicant's business affairs, pricing list, client list, or other confidential information without prior written consent of the applicant's chairman.