Micro-D Limited v Duba and Others (44997/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 6 (21 January 2019)

Micro-D Limited v Duba and Others (44997/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 6 (21 January 2019)

The applicant established a clear right to enforce the non-solicitation restraint provisions in the employment contracts, as the evidence showed that the respondents diverted customer business to the fourth respondent in breach of their contractual obligations. The respondents failed to provide substantive answers to the applicant's averments, relying instead on bald denials and unsubstantiated claims. The court found that the restraint was reasonable in duration and scope, and that the applicant had a proprietary interest in its customer connections. The respondents' objections regarding hearsay and authentication of evidence were dismissed, as the requirements for admission were met....

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Micro-D Limited; Respondent: Duba Ngoako Alan; Respondent: Moyo Unangoni; Respondent: Dyanti Jabu Abel Jacob; Respondent: Bakwena IT Distribution (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Case Number
44997/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application on Urgent Basis
Outcome
Application granted. Final interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicant.
Judges
EF Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Solicitation, Unlawful Competition, Final Interdict, Employment Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Non Solicitation Unlawful Competition Final Interdict Employment Contracts

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Micro-D Limited

Applicant

Duba Ngoako Alan

Respondent

Moyo Unangoni

Respondent

Dyanti Jabu Abel Jacob

Respondent

Bakwena IT Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application on Urgent Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached the non-solicitation restraint provisions in their employment contracts with the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to final interdictory relief restraining the respondents from soliciting its customers.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's business operations in South Africa were unlawful under the Immigration Act, rendering the employment contracts void.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a clear right to enforce the non-solicitation restraint provisions in the employment contracts, as the evidence showed that the respondents diverted customer business to the fourth respondent in breach of their contractual obligations. The respondents failed to provide substantive answers to the applicant's averments, relying instead on bald denials and unsubstantiated claims. The court found that the restraint was reasonable in duration and scope, and that the applicant had a proprietary interest in its customer connections. The respondents' objections regarding hearsay and authentication of evidence were dismissed, as the requirements for admission were met....

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents are interdicted and prohibited from soliciting, or assisting in soliciting, in competition with the applicant, the custom or business of any customer of the applicant with whom they had personal contact or dealings during the twelve months prior to termination of their...
  • The first, second and third respondents are interdicted from knowingly or recklessly doing or saying anything prejudicial to the interests of the applicant or which may result in the discontinuation of any contract or benefit of the applicant.