South Africa Case Law

Scholtz and Another v TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/071413)

Scholtz and Another v TMA Express Road (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/071413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 750 (4 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/071413

Judge

DJ Smit

The court held that the restraint of trade clause was not overly broad, as its purpose is to prevent a former employee from exploiting customer connections, and the collateral effect of prohibiting dealings with new customers is justified. The order did not create a new contract but reflected the wide ambit of the restraint clause itself. The court found that a reasonable apprehension of harm, rather than proof of actual breach, is sufficient for a final interdict regarding confidential information. The facts demonstrated a risk of harm, including Mr Scholtz's possession and use of customer c…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Final Interdict
• Urgent Application

DOT Office Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Badroonisha and Others (2025/114793)

DOT Office Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Badroonisha and Others (2025/114793) [2025] ZALCJHB 329 (28 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/114793

Judge

RN Daniels

The Labour Court refused to make a restraint-of-trade judgment immediately executable pending appeal because the applicant failed to show no irreparable harm to the respondent.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Irreparable Harm
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Urgent Interdict
• Section-18-superior-courts-act

Amiss and Another v F E Industrial Supplies CC (002313/2024)

Amiss and Another v F E Industrial Supplies CC (002313/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 730 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

002313/2024

Judge

Mahosi

The High Court refused summary judgment, finding the defendant’s affidavit disclosed a bona fide defence based on an alleged breach and counterclaim under a subcontractor agreement.

• Summary Judgment
• Contractual Breach
• Counterclaim
• Restraint Of Trade
• Liquidated Claim
• Summary-judgment

Future Packaging and Machinery (Pty) Ltd v Polti and Others (2025/034079)

Future Packaging and Machinery (Pty) Ltd v Polti and Others (2025/034079) [2025] ZALCJHB 322 (14 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/034079

Judge

AH Shene

The Labour Court enforced a restraint of trade and confidentiality agreement against a former senior employee, but limited the restraint to two years from suspension.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforcement Of Contract
• Customer Connections
• Restraint-of-trade
• Confidential-information

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Venkatas and Others (D8229/2024)

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Venkatas and Others (D8229/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 41 (9 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8229/2024

Judge

Masipa

The High Court discharged a rule nisi enforcing a restraint of trade because the restraint period had expired, but ordered the respondents to pay costs.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Interim Interdict
• Costs In Motion Proceedings
• Restraint-of-trade
• Mootness

TWK AGRI (Pty) Ltd v De Lange and Another (2025/072515)

TWK AGRI (Pty) Ltd v De Lange and Another (2025/072515) [2025] ZALCJHB 294 (30 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/072515

Judge

Daniels

The Labour Court granted an urgent final interdict enforcing a restraint of trade and confidentiality undertaking against a former insurance broker.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Final Interdict
• Employment Contract
• Solicitation Of Clients
• Restraint-of-trade

TMA Express Road and Another v Scholtz and Another (2025/071413)

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

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/071413

Judge

Smit

The High Court upheld a restraint and confidentiality claim against a former logistics manager, enforcing a 12-month restriction and granting a final interdict.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Final Interdict
• Enforceability Of Contract
• Solicitation Of Clients
• Restraint-of-trade

Lynnwood Hair and Beauty t/a Skin PhD Lynnwood Bridge v Maseko (069613/2025)

Lynnwood Hair and Beauty t/a Skin PhD Lynnwood Bridge v Maseko (069613/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 699 (24 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

069613/2025

Judge

Mooki

Urgent application to enforce restraint and confidentiality undertakings failed because the applicant did not prove access to or misuse of confidential information.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Unlawful Competition
• Employment Contract
• Urgent Interdict
• Restraint-of-trade

Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Der Kooi and Another (2025-077606)

Axon Group 222 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Der Kooi and Another (2025-077606) [2025] ZAGPPHC 640 (20 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-077606

Judge

N. Rajab-Budlender

The High Court struck an urgent interdict application from the roll, finding the Applicants delayed too long after learning of the alleged restraint breach.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Urgent Interdict
• Employment Contract
• Confidential Information
• Unlawful Competition
• Restraint-of-trade

Tabletpot Admin (Pty) Ltd v Jolliet and Another (2025/061274)

Tabletpot Admin (Pty) Ltd v Jolliet and Another (2025/061274) [2025] ZAGPJHC 605 (17 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/061274

Judge

Crutchfield

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to enforce the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings, as these were valid contractual terms and the first respondent had breached them by joining a direct competitor. The applicant demonstrated a protectable interest in its confidential information and customer connections, which the first respondent had access to during his employment. The court accepted that the applicant did not need to prove actual harm, only the potential for harm due to the first respondent's new role. However, the court found the original ge…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Interdictory Relief
• Employment Contracts