Talisman Hire Bloemfontain (Pty) Ltd v Van Niekerk and Another (2608/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 133 (18 August 2016)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict and Restraint of Trade Enforcement

Legal Issues

1. 1 Is the restraint of trade clause void for vagueness due to its reference to 'area of 150 km' instead of a radius?
2. 2 Is the restraint covenant unreasonable or contrary to public policy?
3. 3 Does the applicant have a protectable interest in trade connections or confidential information?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restraint clause, when interpreted contextually and benevolently, was not void for vagueness and operated as a radius of 150 kilometres from the applicant's Bloemfontein premises. The applicant established a protectable interest in trade connections, and the evidence showed an actual threat to this interest due to the first respondent's employment with a competitor and her approach to the applicant's supplier. The applicant's interest in protecting its business outweighed the first respondent's right to economic activity. The restraint was reasonable in duration and scope, and there were no public policy considerations against its enforcement. The applicant was...

Court Disposition

Application granted; restraint of trade enforced against first respondent; penalty and costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

• The first respondent must pay R35,000 to the applicant within 14 days of the order.
• The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from engaging in any business activities similar to or in competition with the applicant within a radius of 150 kilometres of the applicant's Bloemfontein premises for 12 months from 4 February 2016.