TMA Express Road and Another v Scholtz and Another (2025/071413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 636 (25 June 2025)

TMA Express Road and Another v Scholtz and Another (2025/071413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 636 (25 June 2025)

The court found that Mr Scholtz breached both the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings by joining a direct competitor and soliciting clients using confidential information. The restraint clause, though broadly worded, was interpreted to apply only to competitors operating on the same routes as the applicants and within South Africa. The court held that the applicants had a legitimate protectable interest in their trade connections and confidential information. The restraint was enforceable but the 24-month duration was excessive; a 12-month period was found reasonable given Mr Scholtz's seniority and access to sensitive information. The court granted a final interdict...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 636
Parties
Applicant: TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: TMA Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Henrico John Scholtz; Respondent: 4PL Africa Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
2025/071413
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict
Outcome
Final interdict granted in favour of the applicants; costs awarded against both respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
Smit
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Final Interdict, Enforceability of Contract, Solicitation of Clients
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Final Interdict Enforceability of Contract Solicitation of Clients

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

TMA Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Henrico John Scholtz

Respondent

4PL Africa Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Mr Scholtz breach the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings by joining a competitor and soliciting clients?
  2. 2 Is the restraint of trade clause enforceable and reasonable in scope and duration?
  3. 3 What relief is appropriate in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Scholtz breached both the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings by joining a direct competitor and soliciting clients using confidential information. The restraint clause, though broadly worded, was interpreted to apply only to competitors operating on the same routes as the applicants and within South Africa. The court held that the applicants had a legitimate protectable interest in their trade connections and confidential information. The restraint was enforceable but the 24-month duration was excessive; a 12-month period was found reasonable given Mr Scholtz's seniority and access to sensitive information. The court granted a final interdict...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted in favour of the applicants; costs awarded against both respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • This matter is dealt with as urgent.
  • Mr Henrico John Scholtz is interdicted and restrained from competing with the applicants and from being employed by 4PL Africa Ltd or 4PL Cape (Pty) Ltd within South Africa for a period of 12 months starting on 1 May 2025.