South Africa Case Law

Van den Berg Water (Pty) Ltd t/a Oasis Water Lynnwood and Others v Oasis Water (Pty) Ltd and Another (989/2023; 988/2023; 1120/2023)

Van den Berg Water (Pty) Ltd t/a Oasis Water Lynnwood and Others v Oasis Water (Pty) Ltd and Another (989/2023; 988/2023; 1120/2023) [2025] ZASCA 98 (4 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

989/2023; 988/2023; 1120/2023

Judges

Schippers, Nicholls, Meyer, Kgoele, Phatshoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the post-termination provisions in the franchise agreements were clear and enforceable, requiring franchisees to return all proprietary materials, signage, and cease using Oasis' business system and intellectual property. The evidence established that the franchisees retained and used confidential information, client lists, and marketing strategies gained during the franchise period, and continued to exploit Oasis' business system after termination. The constitutional defences and CPA-based arguments were either not properly pleaded or unsupported by evid…

Source excerpt

• Franchise Agreements
• Post Termination Obligations
• Consumer Protection Act
• Confidential Information
• Trade Secrets
• Unlawful Competition

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

Van Willing Funerals CC and Another v Vision Direct 155 (Pty) Ltd t/a Transafrica (4132/2023)

Van Willing Funerals CC and Another v Vision Direct 155 (Pty) Ltd t/a Transafrica (4132/2023) [2025] ZAECQBHC 21 (17 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

4132/2023

Judge

J W Eksteen

The High Court dismissed a passing-off interdict application, finding the funeral policy use of “Van Willing Funerals” had been authorised by agreement.

• Passing Off
• Unlawful Competition
• Trade Name Infringement
• Final Interdict
• Fais Act Compliance
• Passing-off

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023)

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 170 (17 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10455/2023

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that the applicants' URIZONE trade mark and the respondent's FURIZOME trade mark are both invented words used for identical pharmaceutical products treating urinary tract infections. The dominant elements of both marks are strikingly similar in visual, aural, and conceptual respects, with only minor differences in their prefixes and suffixes. The court held that these differences are insignificant and that the overall impression created by the marks is such that a substantial number of consumers, including patients, doctors, and pharmacists, are likely to be deceived or confus…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Unlawful Competition
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Pharmaceutical Regulation
• Generic Substitution

Technoserve Medium Voltage (Pty) Ltd v Technical Reticulation Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (20127/23)

Technoserve Medium Voltage (Pty) Ltd v Technical Reticulation Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (20127/23) [2025] ZAWCHC 165 (15 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20127/23

Judge

S Sidaki

The court dismissed an urgent application for a springboard interdict, finding the alleged conspiracy and unlawful acts were not proved and factual disputes could not be resolved on paper.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Unlawful Competition
• Springboard Interdict
• Conspiracy
• Fiduciary Duties
• Springboard-interdict

Supercart South Africa (Pty) Limited v Vanesco (Pty) Limited (46975/2018; 2021/30331)

Supercart South Africa (Pty) Limited v Vanesco (Pty) Limited (46975/2018; 2021/30331) [2025] ZAGPJHC 324; [2025] 2 All SA 911 (GJ) (25 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46975/2018; 2021/30331

Judge

Goedhart

The High Court ordered further and better discovery in related design disputes, dismissed a strike-out application, granted condonation, and imposed a confidentiality regime.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Confidentiality Regime
• Registered Design Infringement
• Unlawful Competition
• Reasonable Royalty
• Interlocutory Strike Out

Joyco (Pty) Limited v WV Squared (Pty) Limited and Others (2024-137245)

Joyco (Pty) Limited v WV Squared (Pty) Limited and Others (2024-137245) [2025] ZAGPJHC 131 (21 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024-137245

Judge

Adams

The court found that Joyco failed to establish any protectable interest in confidential information or a corporate opportunity. The Caliburn B6000 vape and its manufacturer UWELL were not confidential, and Joyco had consciously decided not to pursue the white label business. The respondents were not subject to any restraint of trade and were entitled to compete. The applicant's business methods and customer information were not unique or confidential. Furthermore, the urgency relied upon by Joyco was self-created, as it delayed for several months before launching the application. Accordingly,…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Unlawful Competition
• Confidential Information
• Springboarding
• Corporate Opportunity
• Restraint Of Trade

Nativa (Pty) Ltd v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Ltd (20541/2018)

Nativa (Pty) Ltd v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Ltd (20541/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 155 (13 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20541/2018

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court refused Austell’s amendment of its plea, separated a res judicata issue from damages, and held the separated issue should be tried first.

• Unlawful Competition
• Interlocutory Amendment
• Res Judicata
• Issue Estoppel
• Rule 33 4 Separation
• Damages Claim Consolidation

OHM Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v Van Eeden and Another (121736/2023)

OHM Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v Van Eeden and Another (121736/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1358 (27 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

121736/2023

Judge

Matsemela

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of unlawful competition and breach of fiduciary and contractual duties by the first respondent, who used confidential information and company resources to benefit the second respondent while still employed. The affidavits from employees substantiated these claims and were largely uncontested by the respondents. The applicant complied with the procedural requirements of the Anton Piller order, including instituting legal proceedings within the prescribed period. The respondents' opposition was found to be evasive, lacking ge…

Source excerpt

• Anton Piller Order
• Unlawful Competition
• Fiduciary Duties
• Confidential Information
• Breach Of Contract