Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Backsports (Pty) Ltd v Motlhanke and Another (2025/009346) [2025] ZALCJHB 68 (18 February 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an application to enforce a restraint of trade after finding no proven protectable interests, no sufficient breach, and no basis for further interdicts.
Slo Jo Innovation (PTY) Ltd v Beedle and Another (J 737/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 310; (2023) 44 ILJ 854 (LC) (9 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant had a legitimate proprietary interest in confidential information and customer/supplier connections acquired by Ms Beedle during her employment. The restraint of trade and confidentiality clauses were valid and reasonable, both in scope and duration, given the national presence of the applicant's business and the long product development cycles. Ms Beedle failed to discharge the onus of proving that the restraint was unreasonable or that she lacked access to confidential information. Her arguments regarding public knowledge of recipes and lack of exclusive r…
Source excerpt
CJP Chemicals (Pty) Ltd v Dapshis and Another (981/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 40 (29 June 2021)
An urgent South African restraint-of-trade application: the court granted an interim interdict, found a protectable interest in confidential information, and dismissed most strike-out complaints.
Eagle Burgmann Seals SA (Pty) Ltd v Strydom and Another (1054/07) [2008] ZANWHC 17 (29 May 2008)
The court found that the restraint of trade agreement dated 11 September 1997 was valid but limited in its geographical scope to the Vaal Triangle. The applicant failed to establish that the restraint could be tacitly relocated to Rustenburg, as the contract had not expired and the respondent had refused to sign a new restraint agreement covering the new area. The entrenched non-variation clause (Shifren principle) precluded any amendment or extension of the restraint without written agreement. The applicant did not demonstrate a protectable proprietary interest in Rustenburg, nor did it show…
Source excerpt
Explore more
