Inospace Services (Pty) Ltd v Morris and Another (2025/124057) [2025] ZAWCHC 414 (8 September 2025)

Case Note

Inospace Services (Pty) Ltd v Ryan James Morris and Another (Case no 124057/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC…(08 September 2025)

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significance in the enforcement of restraint of trade agreements within the context of employment law. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for protecting business interests against former employees who may solicit clients after leaving their positions, particularly in competitive industries. The ruling also addresses the implications of non-joinder of parties with a direct interest in the outcome of the case.

Cases Cited

• Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A)
• Boomerang Trade CC t/a Border Sheet Metals v Groenewald and Another [2012] JOL 29426 (ECG)
• Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation, 2018 (6) SA 440 (SCA)
• Ice Cream Franchise (Pty) Ltd v Davidoff and Another 2009 (3) SA 78 (C)
• Mogalakwena Local Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, Limpopo [2014] 4 AII 67 (GP)
• Northern Offices Computers (Pty) Ltd v Rosenstein 1981 (4) SA 123 (C)
• Sibex Engineering Services (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk 1991 (2) SA 482
• Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Swartland Municipality and Others 2010 (5) SA 479
• Zingwazi Contractors CC v Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlements 2021 (6) SA 557 (ECG)

Legislation Cited

• Uniform Rules of Court

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 41A of the Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court of South Africa addressed an urgent application by Inospace Services (Pty) Ltd to enforce a restraint of trade agreement against its former employee, Ryan James Morris, and his new employer, Stack One Fulfilment (Pty) Ltd. The court found that the first respondent had solicited clients of the applicant in breach of the restraint agreement, leading to an interim interdict being granted against both respondents.

Key Issues

The key legal issues included the enforceability of the restraint of trade agreement, the urgency of the application, the non-joinder of relevant parties, and whether the applicant had established a protectable interest that warranted the interdict.

Held

The court held that the applicant had a protectable interest in its client relationships and that the first respondent's actions constituted a breach of the restraint of trade agreement. The court granted the interdict as sought by the applicant, restraining both respondents from soliciting the applicant's clients for a period of 12 months.

THE FACTS

Inospace Services (Pty) Ltd, a company providing fulfilment services, employed Ryan James Morris, who was trained and promoted to head the fulfilment division. Upon resigning, Morris solicited clients, including Ecomignite and Repcillen, to join his new employer, Stack One Fulfilment (Pty) Ltd. The applicant sought an urgent interdict to enforce a restraint of trade agreement that prohibited Morris from soliciting its clients for 12 months post-employment.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the application was urgent, whether the non-joinder of Ecomignite and Repcillen was fatal to the application, and whether the applicant had established a case for an interdict against both respondents based on the restraint of trade agreement.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the urgency of the application, concluding that the nature of the restraint of trade made it inherently urgent. It also addressed the non-joinder issue, determining that Ecomignite and Repcillen had an indirect financial interest but were not necessary parties to the proceedings. The court found that the applicant had established a protectable interest in its client relationships, which was threatened by the first respondent's actions.

REMEDY

The court granted an interdict restraining the first respondent from soliciting the applicant's clients for 12 months and similarly restrained the second respondent from canvassing business from the applicant's clients. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established that a restraint of trade agreement is enforceable if it protects a legitimate business interest, does not unreasonably restrict the employee's ability to work, and is not contrary to public policy. The court emphasized the importance of protecting client relationships as a form of goodwill that warrants legal protection against former employees who may exploit their prior positions.