Umlilo Safaris CC v Petzer (624/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 40 (4 April 2017)

Umlilo Safaris CC v Petzer (624/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 40 (4 April 2017)

The court found that while the applicant had a protectable interest in its client base and the respondent did have contact with former clients after the safari, the restraint of trade clause as enforced by the applicant was unreasonable in its duration. A five-year worldwide restraint was excessive and not justified by the nature of the business or the evidence presented. The applicant did not seek to amend its relief to a lesser period or scope, nor did it provide facts to justify a reduced restraint. Consequently, the restraint was declared unenforceable, and the application for interdictory relief was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondent, including reserved costs from a...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Umlilo Safaris CC; Respondent: Johan Daniel Petzer
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Case Number
624/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Interdict and Restraint of Trade
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.J Lowe
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Final Interdict, Reasonableness of Contractual Terms, Protectable Interest
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Final Interdict Reasonableness of Contractual Terms Protectable Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umlilo Safaris CC

Applicant

Johan Daniel Petzer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Interdict and Restraint of Trade

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the agreement between applicant and respondent is reasonable and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether respondent's contact with applicant's clients constituted a breach of the restraint clause.
  3. 3 Whether the duration and scope of the restraint are excessive and contrary to public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant had a protectable interest in its client base and the respondent did have contact with former clients after the safari, the restraint of trade clause as enforced by the applicant was unreasonable in its duration. A five-year worldwide restraint was excessive and not justified by the nature of the business or the evidence presented. The applicant did not seek to amend its relief to a lesser period or scope, nor did it provide facts to justify a reduced restraint. Consequently, the restraint was declared unenforceable, and the application for interdictory relief was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondent, including reserved costs from a...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the cost of the postponement on 14 February 2017.