South Africa Case Law

K2014266944 South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyperion Development v Govender (22420/2024)

K2014266944 South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyperion Development v Govender (22420/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 225 (23 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22420/2024

Judge

Mangcu-Lockwood

The court found that the applicant established a protectable interest in the form of trade secrets and goodwill, including confidential admissions strategies, pricing models, and student leads. The respondent, by virtue of his senior managerial position, had access to this information and was involved in strategic planning and relationship cultivation central to the applicant's business. Project Y was found to be a competitor as defined in the restraint agreement, with sufficient overlap in business activities. The respondent's association with Project Y, regardless of whether services were p…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Protectable Interest
• Confidential Information
• Trade Secrets
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Final Interdict

Sobralia Beleggings (Pty) Ltd t/a ACDC Express Port Elizabeth and Another v Human and Another (4202/2024)

Sobralia Beleggings (Pty) Ltd t/a ACDC Express Port Elizabeth and Another v Human and Another (4202/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 83 (3 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

4202/2024

Judge

Rossi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a protectable interest in the form of customer/trade connections or confidential information that would justify enforcement of the restraint of trade. The evidence did not show that the first respondent had built relationships with customers sufficient to induce them to follow him to a competitor, nor that he had access to confidential information capable of being exploited. The urgency claimed by the applicants was largely self-created due to their delay in bringing the application, and the truncated time periods imposed on the responde…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Customer Connections
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Urgent Interdict

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Jackson (5110/2024)

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Jackson (5110/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 311 (30 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5110/2024

Judge

Mhlambi

The court found that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable. The respondent had access to confidential information and customer relationships, which constituted protectable interests. Her employment with a direct competitor in close proximity posed a real risk of disclosure and exploitation of such information. The respondent failed to prove that the restraint was unreasonable or that the applicant had waived its rights. The short duration and limited geographical scope of the restraint were reasonable and necessary to protect the applicant's interests. Public policy and cons…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Interdict
• Protectable Interest

Mars Consumer Products Africa (Pty) Ltd v Smith and Another (J967/23)

Mars Consumer Products Africa (Pty) Ltd v Smith and Another (J967/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 281 (6 October 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J967/23

Judge

Phehane

The court found that Mr. Smith had signed valid restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings with Mars Africa, which applied for one year from the date of termination of his employment. The undertakings were sufficiently clear in duration, scope, and client definition when interpreted in a business-like manner. Mr. Smith had access to confidential and proprietary information, including strategic plans, financial data, and customer relationships, which could be used to benefit Perfetti, a direct competitor. The risk of disclosure justified enforcement of the restraint. The respondents f…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Protectable Interest
• Urgent Interdict

Gilbarco AFS (PTY) Ltd t/a Gilbarco Mea v Hattingh and Others (J 1134/2022)

Gilbarco AFS (PTY) Ltd t/a Gilbarco Mea v Hattingh and Others (J 1134/2022) [2022] ZALCJHB 149 (25 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1134/2022

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court enforced a restraint of trade against a former employee who joined a competitor developing a similar fuel-management solution.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Protectable Interest
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Customer Connections
• Restraint-of-trade

Heightsafety Training Academy (Pty) Ltd v Mose and Others (J2039/19)

Heightsafety Training Academy (Pty) Ltd v Mose and Others (J2039/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 326 (22 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2039/19

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that while the applicant has a protectable interest in its exclusive know-how and customer connections, the restraint sought was too broad and would unreasonably prevent the first respondent from pursuing his vocation. The applicant failed to prove a proprietary interest in its training methods or products that would justify a blanket restraint. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction over delictual claims for unlawful interference with contract, as such claims are not matters concerning a contract of employment under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The applicant's interests ar…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Protectable Interest
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unlawful Interference With Contract
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract

Mikeva Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd and Another v Marx (J2720/17)

Mikeva Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd and Another v Marx (J2720/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 463 (12 December 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2720/17

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court enforced a restraint of trade in part, finding a breach by a new butchery near Mikeva, but narrowing the restraint’s geographic scope.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Sale Of Business
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Protectable Interest
• Geographical Scope Of Restraint
• Restraint-of-trade

Interwaste Holdings Limited v Mahoney and Another (J1619/15)

Interwaste Holdings Limited v Mahoney and Another (J1619/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 282 (8 September 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1619/15

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that Mahoney had access to confidential and proprietary information, including strategic planning, financial details, and customer relationships, which could be valuable to a competitor. Although Mahoney's knowledge of some matters was outdated and limited, the applicant was entitled to protect itself against the risk of disclosure. The restraint of trade agreement was enforceable, but the two-year duration was excessive given the nature and currency of the information. The court reduced the restraint period to one year, balancing the applicant's protectable interests against…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Protectable Interest

Tuv Sud South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Branders and Another (J736/12)

Tuv Sud South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Branders and Another (J736/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 135; (2015) 36 ILJ 2398 (LC) (24 April 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J736/12

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court enforced a 12-month restraint and confidentiality obligations against a former employee who competed, solicited clients, and accessed proprietary information.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Solicitation Of Customers
• Restraint-of-trade
• Confidential-information

Sibeko v Premier for the Province of the Northern Cape and Another (1672/09)

Sibeko v Premier for the Province of the Northern Cape and Another (1672/09) [2009] ZANCHC 66; [2010] 2 BLLR 207 (NCK) (6 November 2009)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1672/09

Judge

Majiedt

The court held that, despite the applicant's attempt to frame his claim as enforcement of contractual rights, the substance of the dispute was an alleged unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his employment without a pre-dismissal hearing. The pleadings, when properly interpreted, revealed that the applicant was asserting a claim that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 157(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The court found that the applicant's employment was governed by the Public Service Act and the LRA, and that the relief sought—reinstatement,…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Unfair Dismissal
• Enforcement Of Employment Contract
• Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Pre-dismissal Hearing
• Public Service Act