Scholtz and Another v TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/071413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 750 (4 August 2025)

Scholtz and Another v TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/071413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 750 (4 August 2025)

The court held that the restraint of trade clause was not overly broad, as its purpose is to prevent a former employee from exploiting customer connections, and the collateral effect of prohibiting dealings with new customers is justified. The order did not create a new contract but reflected the wide ambit of the restraint clause itself. The court found that a reasonable apprehension of harm, rather than proof of actual breach, is sufficient for a final interdict regarding confidential information. The facts demonstrated a risk of harm, including Mr Scholtz's possession and use of customer contact details and his lack of candour. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect that another...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 750
Parties
Applicant: Henrico John Scholtz; Applicant: 4PL Africa Ltd; Respondent: TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: TMA Logistics (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2025
Case Number
2025/071413
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Enforcement of Restraint of Trade Order.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicants.
Judges
DJ Smit
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Final Interdict, Urgent Application
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Final Interdict Urgent Application

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henrico John Scholtz

Applicant

4PL Africa Ltd

Applicant

TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

TMA Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Enforcement of Restraint of Trade Order.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade order was overly broad and created a new contract for the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant breached confidentiality undertakings or whether there was merely a risk of harm.
  3. 3 Whether the Plascon-Evans rule was correctly applied to disputes of fact regarding use of confidential information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the restraint of trade clause was not overly broad, as its purpose is to prevent a former employee from exploiting customer connections, and the collateral effect of prohibiting dealings with new customers is justified. The order did not create a new contract but reflected the wide ambit of the restraint clause itself. The court found that a reasonable apprehension of harm, rather than proof of actual breach, is sufficient for a final interdict regarding confidential information. The facts demonstrated a risk of harm, including Mr Scholtz's possession and use of customer contact details and his lack of candour. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect that another...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Mr Scholtz and 4PL Africa must pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal on scale C.