Strata Mining Supplies CC v Fourie and Others (22222/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 177 (7 September 2012)

Strata Mining Supplies CC v Fourie and Others (22222/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 177 (7 September 2012)

The applicant failed to prove that the first respondent had access to sensitive or confidential information or that any protectable interest existed. The first respondent's skills and customer connections were developed prior to his employment with the applicant and do not belong to the applicant. Even if a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 177
Parties
Applicant: Strata Mining Supplies CC; Respondent: Willem Jacobus Fourie; Respondent: Multotec (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mato Products (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2012
Case Number
22222/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application and Interlocutory Motions
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
B H Mbha
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Protectable Interest, Public Policy, Enforceability of Contract, Application to Strike Out
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Protectable Interest Public Policy Enforceability of Contract Application to Strike Out

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Strata Mining Supplies CC

Applicant

Willem Jacobus Fourie

Respondent

Multotec (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mato Products (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application and Interlocutory Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade agreement between the applicant and first respondent is enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a protectable interest justifying enforcement of the restraint.
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of the restraint would be contrary to public policy given the first respondent's age and skills.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the first respondent had access to sensitive or confidential information or that any protectable interest existed. The first respondent's skills and customer connections were developed prior to his employment with the applicant and do not belong to the applicant. Even if a protectable interest existed, enforcing the restraint would be unreasonable and contrary to public policy, as it would render the first respondent, aged 58 with no other skills, unemployable for the remainder of his working life. The application to dismiss and to strike out portions of the replying affidavit also fails, as the founding affidavit disclosed a cause of action and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent's application to dismiss and to strike out the replying affidavit is dismissed with costs.