Scibit Scientific Bitware (Pty) Ltd v Steenkamp (3242/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 243 (7 December 2020)

Scibit Scientific Bitware (Pty) Ltd v Steenkamp (3242/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 243 (7 December 2020)

The court found that the applicant had a proprietary interest in its customers and suppliers, and that the respondent breached the restraint of trade clause by exploiting knowledge gained during employment to solicit and compete for the applicant's clients. The factual disputes regarding shareholding were irrelevant to the enforceability of the restraint clause. The applicant's conduct, while not exemplary, did not amount to constructive dismissal as alleged by the respondent, and the resignation letter did not support such a claim. The restraint period of 18 months was found to be excessive given the circumstances and was reduced to eight months. The court held that the applicant was...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 243
Parties
Applicant: Scibit Scientific Bitware (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wilco Steenkamp
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2020
Case Number
3242/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; respondent interdicted from competing for eight months and from soliciting applicant's employees; no order as to costs.
Judges
C.J. Musi
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Protectable Interest, Constructive Dismissal, Confidential Information, Intellectual Property
Commercial and Corporate Labour Law Restraint of Trade Protectable Interest Constructive Dismissal Confidential Information Intellectual Property

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scibit Scientific Bitware (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Wilco Steenkamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached clause 18 of the employment contract (restraint of trade).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a legally protectable interest in its customers and suppliers.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct caused the respondent to terminate the employment relationship and if this affects enforceability of the restraint clause.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had a proprietary interest in its customers and suppliers, and that the respondent breached the restraint of trade clause by exploiting knowledge gained during employment to solicit and compete for the applicant's clients. The factual disputes regarding shareholding were irrelevant to the enforceability of the restraint clause. The applicant's conduct, while not exemplary, did not amount to constructive dismissal as alleged by the respondent, and the resignation letter did not support such a claim. The restraint period of 18 months was found to be excessive given the circumstances and was reduced to eight months. The court held that the applicant was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; respondent interdicted from competing for eight months and from soliciting applicant's employees; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from directly or indirectly within the Magisterial District of Bloemfontein carrying on or being involved in, or having an interest in, or being employed or contracted by, or rendering assistance to, or providing advice, or being associated with, or engaged in, or...
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from canvassing, enticing or soliciting any employee of the applicant to leave the employment of the applicant.