Umlilo Safaris CC v Petzer (624/2017)
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 interdictor…
Source excerpt
- Restraint Of Trade
- Final Interdict
- Reasonableness Of Contractual Terms
- Protectable Interest