SA Kalk and GIPS (Edms) Bpk v Krog and Another (C350/2017) [2017] ZALCCT 30 (29 June 2017)

SA Kalk and GIPS (Edms) Bpk v Krog and Another (C350/2017) [2017] ZALCCT 30 (29 June 2017)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as it did not prove the existence of an oral restraint of trade agreement. The evidence and correspondence did not support the applicant's contention that such a term was agreed upon. The respondent consistently denied the existence of any restraint, and the applicant's account was undermined by the absence of any reference to a restraint in the employment offer, subsequent correspondence, or the unsigned draft contract. The applicant also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the nature of the industry and the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent's employment with a competitor would cause...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 30
Parties
Applicant: SA Kalk & Gips (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Ben Krog; Respondent: Grasland Ondernemings (Edms) Bpk
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Case Number
C350/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Referral Under BCEA S 77(3)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Interim Interdict, Jurisdiction Under Bcea, Oral Contracts, Urgent Relief
Labour Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Interim Interdict Jurisdiction Under Bcea Oral Contracts Urgent Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA Kalk & Gips (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Ben Krog

Respondent

Grasland Ondernemings (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Referral Under BCEA S 77(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral restraint of trade agreement exists between the applicant and first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction over the dispute and the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict are satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as it did not prove the existence of an oral restraint of trade agreement. The evidence and correspondence did not support the applicant's contention that such a term was agreed upon. The respondent consistently denied the existence of any restraint, and the applicant's account was undermined by the absence of any reference to a restraint in the employment offer, subsequent correspondence, or the unsigned draft contract. The applicant also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the nature of the industry and the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent's employment with a competitor would cause...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.