Steenkamp v Coolag (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17997/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 366 (12 November 2024)

Steenkamp v Coolag (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17997/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 366 (12 November 2024)

The court found that clause 17.2 of the employment agreement, when read in context with the confidentiality and restraint provisions, was intended as a restraint of trade, and the omission of the word 'not' was a drafting error that did not negate the parties' common intention. Rectification was permissible in reply, as supported by binding authority, and the applicant's own evidence confirmed the existence of a restraint. The costs order was within the court's discretion and did not warrant interference. The respondent demonstrated exceptional circumstances and the potential for irreparable harm if the order was suspended, given the applicant's ongoing solicitation of clients. The...

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 366
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Johannes Pienaar Steenkamp; Respondent: Coolag (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Case Number
17997/24
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Section 18 Execution Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed. Execution of the restraint order is granted pending any further application for leave to appeal or appeal.
Judges
Gordon-Turner
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Rectification of Contract, Costs Award, Section 18 Execution, Condonation for Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Rectification of Contract Costs Award Section 18 Execution Condonation for Late Filing

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Johannes Pienaar Steenkamp

Applicant

Coolag (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Section 18 Execution Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 17.2 of the employment agreement constitutes an enforceable restraint of trade clause.
  2. 2 Whether rectification of clause 17.2 was permissible in reply without being sought in the founding papers.
  3. 3 Whether the punitive costs order, including costs of counsel on scale B, was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that clause 17.2 of the employment agreement, when read in context with the confidentiality and restraint provisions, was intended as a restraint of trade, and the omission of the word 'not' was a drafting error that did not negate the parties' common intention. Rectification was permissible in reply, as supported by binding authority, and the applicant's own evidence confirmed the existence of a restraint. The costs order was within the court's discretion and did not warrant interference. The respondent demonstrated exceptional circumstances and the potential for irreparable harm if the order was suspended, given the applicant's ongoing solicitation of clients. The...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed. Execution of the restraint order is granted pending any further application for leave to appeal or appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with party and party costs to be paid by Jacobus Johannes Pienaar Steenkamp, including the costs of counsel on scale B of Uniform Rule 69(7).
  • The operation and execution of the orders in the judgment granted under case number 17997/2024 on 19 September 2024 are to be implemented with immediate effect pending any further application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or to the President of the SCA and pending any appeal process by Jacobus...