Action Alliance Vrystaat (Pty) Ltd v Bobbert en 'n Ander (2143/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 46 (27 May 2004)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2004
>>
[2004] ZAFSHC 46
|

|

Action Alliance Vrystaat (Pty) Ltd v Bobbert en 'n Ander (2143/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 46 (27 May 2004)

IN DIE
HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE-VRYSTAATSE
PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Saak
Nr. 2143/2004
In die
saak tussen:
AUCTION
ALLIANCE VRYSTAAT
Applikant
(PTY)
LTD
(voorheen
bekend as Dotcom Trading
388
(Pty) Ltd h/a Auction Alliance
Free
State)
en
FRANZ
OTTO BOBBERT
Eerste Respondent
AUCOR
FREE STATE (PTY) LTD
Tweede Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
CORAM:
VAN
COPPENHAGEN, R
_____________________________________________________________________
AANGEHOOR
OP:
13 MEI 2004
_____________________________________________________________________
GELEWER
OP:
27 MEI 2004
_____________________________________________________________________
[1] Op 15 April 2004 het die applikant aansoek gedoen om
‘n bevel met die volgende bepalings:
“
1. Condoning the Applicant’s
failure to comply with the forms, service and time limits prescribed
by the rules of the above Honourable
Court; and directing that the
matter be heard as a matter of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12)(a).
2. That a
rule
nisi
be issued calling upon Respondents to show cause to the above
Honourable Court, if any, on a date to be determined by the above
Honourable
Court as to why a final order should not be granted in the
following terms:
2.1 interdicting and restraining
the First Respondent from divulding or disclosing to the Second
Respondent any of the Applicant’s
systems, methods, procedures,
trade secrets, trade marks, patents, customer lists/client lists
including contact details and telephone
numbers, details or
information relating to suppliers, business connections and other
confidential information obtained by the First
Respondent in the
course of his employment by the Applicant;
2.2 interdicting and prohibiting
the First Respondent from directly or indirectly being engaged or
concerned or interested in any
way in or employed by or soliciting
business for or being a director, shareholder, member or partner in
or consultant, trustee, manager,
auctioneer or appraiser, agent,
representative, partner, advisor, or officer to or rendering any
service to, the Second Respondent
(or its holding or subsidiary or
associated companies) or any other firm, person or entity conducting
an activity which competes
with the Applicant, for a period of 12
months in the Republic of South Africa, from the date of termination
of employment of First
Respondent’s employment with Applicant;
2.3 interdicting and restraining
First Respondent from soliciting orders, canvassing business or
providing services to any client
or customer of Applicant;
2.4 interdicting and restraining
First Respondent from persuading, inducing, encouraging or procuring
any of Applicant’s employees
to become employed by Second
Respondent or any competitor of Applicant or to terminate their
employment with Applicant;
2.5 interdicting and restraining
the Second Respondent from employing the First Respondent as an
employee or in any of the capacities
referred to in paragraph 2.2
above;
2.6 directing that the First and
Second Respondents pay the costs of this application on the scale as
between attorney and client,
jointly and severally, the one paying,
the other to be absolved;
2.7 granting such further or
alternative relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit.
3. That the
provisions of paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 above operate as an interim order
pending the return day of the rule
nisi
.
4. Further
and/or alternative relief.”
Die aansoek was egter by ooreenkoms op gemelde datum
uitgestel tot 23 April 2004 en gelas dat koste oorstaan.
Op 23 April 2004 het ek aan die advokate debattering van
die houdbaarheid van ‘n kontrakbepaling waardeur ‘n persoon
verbied word
om sy verkose bedryf, beroep of professie te beoefen in
lig van die bepalings van veral artikel 13 van die Grondwet, aan die
orde
gestel. Die aansoek was, omdat geeneen van die advokate
voorbereid was om die punt sinvol te beredeneer nie, uitgestel tot 13
Mei
2004.
[2] Wat ookal die bedes in die aansoek uiteengesit mag
wees, is en bly die wesensvraag in die onderhawige aansoek of die
bepaling
in die ooreenkoms, ‘n dienskontrak, tussen applikant en
eerste respondent ingevolge waarvan eerste respondent na
diensbeëindiging
by die applikant verbied word om vir ‘n periode
van 12 maande in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika enige afslaers,
waardeerders en
ander besigheid soortgelyk aan die wat die applikant
bedryf, te beoefen, afdwingbaar is.
Dit verg beklemtoning dat die partye dit eens is dat
applikant se regshulp gegrond word op die skriftelilke kontrak wat
die partye
aangegaan het laatstens op 16 November 2001.
[3] Die feite waarop enige
uiteindelike bevinding ooreenkomstig die rigtinggewende uitsprake in
PLASCON-EVANS
PAINTS LTD v VAN RIEBEECK PAINTS (PTY) LTD
[1984] ZASCA 51
;
1984 (3) SA 623
(A) te 634E-635C
en sake daarin aangehaal, gebaseer moet word is eenvouding.
Eerste respondent het nadat hy in 1997 van ‘n kursus
waarin hy in alle aspekte van die afslaersbesigheid onderrig was in
dieselfde
jaar sy eie afslaersbesigheid in Bethlehem onder die naam
“Royal Auctions” begin. Sy kontak met Rael Levitt, ‘n
direkteur
van applikant en ‘n deponent tot applikant se funderende
verklaring wat op daardie stadium, onder andere, ‘n besigheid onder
die naam “Seeff Auctions” bedryf het, het in 1998 plaasgevind toe
hy versoek was om ‘n veiling vir Delmonte Foods in Kaapstad
te
behartig.
Latere geprekke tussen gemelde Levitt, eerste
respondent, en ene Hattingh aangaande uitbouing van Levitt se
besigheid na die Vrystaat
het in 2001 daartoe gelei dat ‘n
maatskappy wat as konsessiehouer vir Levitt se besighede kon dien,
deur Hattingh en sy vennoot
Marais gestig was. Hierdie maatskappy,
na ‘n naamsverandering na Auction Alliance (Free State) (Pty) Ltd
het as Auction Alliance
Free State as afslaers, met eerste respondent
wat die funksies vervul en verrig het, besigheid gedoen. Dit was dan
ook later besluit
dat eerste respondent na Bloemfontein sou verhuis
vanwaar die besigheid weens gegronde en gesonde besigheidsredes
bedryf sou word.
Die besigheid van voormelde maatskappy was deur
“Dotcom Trading 388 (Pty) Ltd” waarvan die naam later na Auction
Alliance Vrystaat
(Pty) Ltd verander was, gedurende 2001 oorgeneem.
Eerste respondent het as deel van die besigheid na applikant
oorgegaan. Die gewraakte
dienskontrak was dan ook in November 2001,
nadat eerste respondent reeds vir ‘n geruime tyd in Bloemfontein
was en aldaar gewerk
het, onderteken.
Eerste respondent gesetel in Bloemfontein het na
ondertekening van die kontrak met sy pligte voortgegaan en was in
Julie 2002 as direkteur
van applikant aangestel.
Op 9 Februarie 2004 het eerste respondent sy bedanking,
wat op 9 Maart 2004 effektief sou wees, skriftelik ingedien. Hierdie
bedanking
was na verdere onderhandelings en gesprekke op 4 Maart 2004
per e-pos deur eerste respondent bekragtig.
Eerste respondent het na onderhandeling in Maart 2004 ‘n
diensooreenkoms aangegaan om op 1 April 2004 by tweede respondent
diens
te aanvaar.
[4] Klousule 17 van die dienskontrak, (Aanhangsel “RL1”
tot die funderende verklaring) beslaan in omvang die helfte van die
ooreenkoms
tussen die partye en bevat die wese van die
kontraksverhouding waarop applikant steun. Dit lees as volg:
“
17.
CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF TRADE
17.1 In this clause, unless
clearly inconsistent with the context, the words and phrases defined
hereunder shall bear the meanings
assigned to them in this
sub-clause:
17.1.1 “
the
business
” means the
business conducted by the company from time to time, namely that of:
17.1.1.1 Auctioneers and
appraisers; and
17.1.1.2 any other business
conducted by the company in the ordinary course of the company’s
business;
17.1.2 “
competitive
activity
” means any
activity which is the same as or similar to the business;
17.1.3 “
confidential
information
”
includes but is not limited to any of the group’s trade secrets,
know how, confidential information, goodwill and intangible
assets in
general which relate to the business, including (but not limited to):
17.1.3.1 financial methods,
policies and philosophies;
17.1.3.2 marketing
methods, policies and philosophies;
17.1.3.3 formulae;
17.1.3.4 processes;
17.1.3.5 systems;
17.1.3.6 sources of supply;
17.1.3.7 business methods
including techniques and business practices;
17.1.3.8 inventions;
17.1.3.9 quality
control of products;
17.1.3.10 any discounts
obtained from
suppliers;
17.1.3.11 control of stock
losses;
17.1.3.12 methods of
distribution;
17.1.3.13 specialised knowledge
of training programmes and staff welfare;
17.1.3.14 business
connections;
17.1.3.15 internal
control systems;
17.1.3.16 buying
policies and strategies;
17.1.3.17 salary
and wage policies;
17.1.3.18 security methods;
17.1.3.19 knowledge of the
customers and
business
associates; 17.1.3.20 contractual arrangements and
financing
techniques; 17.1.3.21 personnel; 17.1.3.22 strategic
plans;
17.1.3.23 other matters which
relate to the business of the group in respect of which information
is not readily available in the
ordinary course of business to a
competitor of the group;
17.1.4 “
entity
”
includes any association, business, close corporation, company,
concern, enterprise, firm, partnership, person, trust, undertaking,
voluntary association or similar entity;
17.1.5 “
the
restraint period
”
means a period of 12 (twelve) months after the date of termination of
the Auctioneer’s employment for any reason whatsoever;
17.1.6 “
the
restraint area
”
means the Republic of South Africa;
17.1.7 “
prescribed
customers or suppliers
”
means any person –
17.1.7.1 who is or was a
customer or supplier of the business during the existence of this
Agreement and as at the termination date;
17.1.7.2 who
is or was a prospective customer or supplier of the business as at
the termination date or whom the Auctioneer or any
other
representative of the company had approached to do business with the
company within the fixed term period of 3 months;
17.1.8 “
prescribed
goods
” means any
and all goods which are dealt in or by the company in the ordinary
course of business as at the termination date or
duration of this
agreement;
17.1.9 “
prescribed
services
” means any
and all services rendered by the company in the ordinary course of
business as at the termination date or during the
duration of this
agreement;
17.1.10“
termination
date
” means the
date upon
which the Auctioneers Contract
of Employment is terminated for any reason whatsoever.
17.2 It is recorded and agreed
that:
17.2.1 the business is highly
competitive;
17.2.2 the group has valuable
trade connections;
17.2.3 by reason of the
Auctioneer’s prior direct or indirect interest in the business, as
well as his appointment in terms hereof,
the Auctioneer has and will
acquire an in-depth knowledge of the confidential information;
17.2.4 should
the Auctioneer sever this association with the group and make the
confidential information available to a competitor
of the group or
utilise such confidential information in competition with the group,
it would cause the group to suffer considerable
financial loss;
17.2.5 substantial
benefits have directly or indirectly accrued or will accrue to the
Auctioneer arising out of
17.2.5.1 the related
agreements
17.2.5.2 his
employment in terms hereof;
and
17.2.5.3 his remuneration and
other benefits that he shall become entitled to by virtue of the
appointment;
17.2.6 it is accordingly
necessary for the company, in order to protect it and the groups
goodwill and legitimate proprietary interests
in the confidential
information and other legitimate interests, to conclude an agreement
with the Auctioneer pursuant to which the
Auctioneer will be
restraint in certain respects.
17.3 In consideration of the
various matters referred to above, the Auctioneer undertakes to and
in favour of the company that:
17.3.1 the Auctioneer shall not,
directly or indirectly, whilst an employee of the company or at any
time thereafter, use for his
own benefit, or the benefit of any other
person, and shall keep confidential and not disclose any confidential
information, other
than to those persons connected with the company,
who are required to have that information;
17.3.2 he shall not, either
during the currency of this agreement or during any of the months of
the restraint period, directly or
indirectly:
17.3.2.1 carry on or otherwise
be engaged or concerned or interested in or employed by;
17.3.2.2 solicit business
for;
17.3.2.3 be
a director, shareholder, member
or partner in;
17.3.2.4 act as a consultant,
trustee, manager, Auctioneer, agent, representative, partner,
advisor, officer, or in any other capacity
to;
17.3.2.5 render
any service (gratuitously or otherwise) to;
17.3.2.6 lend
or advance, or bind himself as surety for, any sum of money or assist
financially any entity directly or indirectly
engaged or interested
in any competitive activity in the restraint area.
17.3.3 without derogating from
the obligations in terms of clause, the Auctioneer agrees that
neither he nor any entity in which he
is directly or indirectly
interested will, during any month of the restraint period and in the
restraint area, directly or indirectly,
through any entity, and
whether for reward or not –
17.3.3.1 solicit orders from
prescribed customers or suppliers for the prescribed goods and/or the
prescribed services;
17.3.3.2 canvass
business in respect of the prescribed goods and/or the prescribed
services from prescribed customers or suppliers;
17.3.3.3 sell
or otherwise supply any prescribed goods to any prescribed customer
or suppliers;
17.3.3.4 render
any prescribed services to any prescribed customer or supplier;
17.3.3.5 purchase
any prescribed goods from any prescribed customer or supplier or
accept the rendering of any prescribed services
from any prescribed
customer or supplier;
17.3.3.6 solicit appointment as
a distributor, licensee, agent or representative of any prescribed
customer or supplier in respect
of the prescribed goods and/or the
prescribed services;
17.3.3.7 carry
on a competitive activity or any portion thereof;
17.3.4 at any time during the
restraint period do anything referred to in 16.3.2 or 16.3.3 outside
the restraint area which has the
effect of causing the group or the
business prejudice in the restraint area;
17.3.5 the Auctioneer shall not,
either for the Auctioneer’s own account or as a representative or
agent for any third party, whilst
an Auctioneer of the company or
thereafter during any month of the restraint period, persuade,
induce, encourage or procure an Employee
employed by the company
(including any Employee employed by the Company within a period of 3
(three) months prior to the termination
date) –
17.3.5.1 to become employed by,
or interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever, in
competitive business, or;
17.3.5.2 terminate his
employment with the company; or
17.3.5.3 to
furnish any confidential information acquired by that Auctioneer as a
result of his employment by the company to any unauthorised
person.
17.4 The Auctioneer agrees
that –
17.4.1 the restraints imposed
upon him in terms of this Agreement (interpreted in their widest
sense as contemplated in 16.4.5 below)
are reasonable as to subject
matter, period and area and that the said restraints are fair,
reasonable and justifiable (taking into
consideration his personal
knowledge, wholly or partially, or the confidential information, the
considerable loss which the group
would suffer if the Auctioneer were
to make his expertise, knowledge and experience available to a
competitor of the group, and the
direct or indirect benefits referred
to in 16.2.5 and go on no further than is reasonably necessary to
protect the proprietary rights
and legitimate interests of the
company and the group;
17.4.2 this agreement is entered
into upon the basis and it is a material term of this agreement that
the company would be entitled
to the benefit of the restraints as set
out in this Agreement interpreted in their widest sense as
contemplated in 16.4.5;
17.4.3 the stipulations in this
16 are separate, severable and independent stipulations in favour of
–
17.4.3.1 the company;
17.4.3.2 any other subsidiary of
the Company carrying on the business;
17.4.3.3 any
successors-in-title of such parties, and for purposes of this clause
“successors-in-title” means any person who –
17.4.3.3.1 acquires the
business; or
17.4.3.3.2 becomes the
bene-ficial owner of the business through him/its shareholding in any
company; or
17.4.3.3.3 has acquired by
cession the rights to enforce the restraints embodied herein which
are capable of acceptance and enforcement
by any such parties or
successors-in-title at any time hereafter in any combination of one
or more of them;
17.4.4 the provisions of this 16
shall be construed as imposing separate, severable and independent
restraints in respect of –
17.4.4.1 each of the months
falling within the restraint period;
17.4.4.2 each
state, province, division or council area, municipal area,
magisterial district, town and locality falling within the
restraint
area;
17.4.4.3 each
activity falling within the ambit of a competitive activity;
17.4.4.4 each capacity in
relation to the competitive activity which the Auctioneer is
prohibited from undertaking in terms of this
16;
17.4.4.5 each category of
services falling within the definition of the prescribed services;
17.4.4.6 each
category of goods falling within the definition of prescribed goods;
17.4.4.7 each category persons
falling within the definitions of prescribed suppliers or customers;
17.4.4.8 each division of
the purchaser;
17.4.5 the restraints set out in
this 16 shall be given the widest possible interpretation and no
restraint or combination of restraints
shall be limited by reference
to or inference from or to any other restraint or combination of
restraints provided, however, that
the invalidity or unenforceability
of any one or combination of restraints referred to above (including
the restraints interpreted
in their widest cumulative senses
aforesaid) shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the
other restraints referred to
in this 16 or any other combination of
such restraints.
17.5 The Auctioneer hereby
further agrees and acknowledges that:
17.5.1 should he at any time
deny that any of the restraint covenants contained this 16 are
reasonable or enforceable, then the onus
of proving their
unreasonableness or enforceability shall be upon the Auctioneer (and
the restraint will therefore be presumed to
be enforceable and valid
in all aspects until the contrary is proved by the Auctioneer);
17.5.2 he has carefully read the
provisions of the restraint of trade covenants contained in this 16
and fully realises the implications
and effect of the provisions
thereof and has entered into such restraint of trade covenants freely
and voluntarily and that such
restraint of trade covenants will not
cause him any hardship which he is not willing to bear in return for
the benefits referred
to in 16.2.5.
17.6 No restraints referred to
in this clause 16 shall preclude the Auctioneer from –
17.6.1 holding a direct or
indirect beneficial shareholding in any company listed on a
recognised stock exchange, where the direct
holding or cumulative
indirect holdings of the Auctioneer does not exceed 5% (five per
cent) of any class of that listed company’s
issued share capital
and the interests of the Auctioneer are solely those shareholder;
17.6.2 Holding beneficially
share in the issued share capital of the Company or Group of
Companies;
17.6.3 From
being appointed to the board of the company.”
[5] Applikant bevestig dat die
aansoek ten doel het om eerste respondent te verhoed om applikant se
handelsgeheime en vertroulike
inligting bekend te maak asook om in
diens te tree of betrokke te raak by tweede respondent vir ‘n
periode van 12 maande vanaf
diensbeëindiging.
[6] Die grondslag van die aangevraagde regshulp, so word
deur applikant aangevoer, is dat eerste respondent uit hoofde van sy
posisie
by applikant toegang gehad het tot – wat vir doeleindes
hiervan “handelsgeheime” genoem sal word, en ook intieme kennis
opgedoen
het van kliënte en besigheids- en vertrouensverhoudings
opgedoen het met kliënte. Daardie inligting, so voer applikant aan,
verg
beskerming, regtens.
[7] Eerste respondent verklaar as
feit dat al die sogenaamde handelsgeheime asook die kliënte basis
waarop applikant beroep doen
inderwaarheid in die betrokke bedryf
alom bekend is en in die algemeen in die bedryf benut en aangewend
word, trouens eerste respondent
verklaar nadruklik dat hy geen
formules, metodes en/of werkwyses of kliënte basis vir die bedryf
anders as waaroor hy persoonlik
beskik het by applikant ontvang of
geleer het nie.
[8] ‘n Persoon se unieke talente,
gawes, kundigheid, bedrewendheid, vaardigheid en persoonlikheid kan
nooit deur ‘n ander in
beslag geneem word nie. Botha AR
verduidelik in
BASSON
v CHILWAN AND OTHERS
[1993] ZASCA 61
;
1993 (3) SA 742
(A) te 778C-D:
“
In
essence, the Chilwans are seeking to prevent Basson from using his
skill and experience, and his innate or acquired abilities,
to the
potential detriment of their investment. In this respect the case
bears no resemblance to the case of the seller and buyer
of a
business. On the contrary, it approximates closely to the case of an
employer and employee relationship in one respect. In
relation to
such cases it has often been said in the authorities that a man’s
skills and abilities are a part of himself and that
he cannot
ordinarily be precluded from making use of them by a contract in
restraint of trade.”
Voormelde uitspraak het myns insiens
op 8 Mei 1996 sterk onderskraging gekry toe die Grondwet, Wet 108 van
1996, as hoogste reg (
cf
artikel 2 Wet 108
van 1996) op die wetboek geplaas was. Artikel 22 van die Grondwet
verleen aan elke burger die reg om ‘n bedryf,
beroep of professie
te kies. Geen regulering in die beoefening van die gekose professie,
beroep of bedryf wat as slawerny, knegskap
of dwangarbeid aangemerk
kan word sal egter geduld word nie (
cf
artikel 13 van die Grondwet). Enige kontrak wat dus bepaal dat ‘n
persoon sy unieke en persoonlike kundigheid, gawes, talente,
bedrewenheid of vaardigheid slegs aan ‘n bepaalde persoon of
instansie moet diensbaar stel, sal gevolglik as ‘n reël
contra
bones mores
wees.
[9] Op die feite wat vir doeleindes van hierdie aansoek
aanvaar moet word, is die afleiding onvermydelik dat applikant wens
te verhoed
dat eerste respondent vir ‘n periode van een jaar binne
die Republiek van Suid-Afrika sy persoonlike en unieke talente,
gawes,
vaardighede, bedrewendheid, en kundigheid, hetsy tot voordeel
van homself hetsy tot voordeel van ‘n ander, anders as applikant
beskikbaar moet stel of kan stel. Dit kan ook anders gestel word;
eerste respondent mag vir gemelde periode binne die RSA slegs
sy
persoonlike unieke vaardighede, kundighede, talente, bedrewendheid en
gawes in diens van applikant aanwend.
Die voorgestelde beperkings is myns
insiens in die omstandighede
contra
bones mores
en dus
regtens onafdwingbaar.
[10] In die loop van die argument was namens applikant,
toe hy gekonfronteer word met die moontlike onhoudbaarheid van die
beperking,
aangevoer dat indien die beperking weens die omvang
betreffende gebied en tydsduur die een of ander of beide as onredelik
aangemerk
kan word, die area verskraal moet word tot die provinsies
Noord-Kaap, die Vrystaat en Gauteng.
Die versoek tot verskraling van die area van die
beperking was tydens argument vir die eerste keer voorgedra;
applikant spreek dit
nie in die aansoekstukke aan nie.
[11] Die beginsel van toepassing waar
‘n party ‘n beperking of inkorting op ‘n ooreengekome
handelsbeperking aanvra is duidelik.
In
NATIONAL
CHEMSEARCH (SA) (PTY) LTD v BORROWMAN AND ANOTHER
1979 (3) SA 1092
(T) te 114D-E
lig Botha R toe:
“
If there
is to be such a development, it might well be expected of the party
seeking to enforce something less than what was agreed
upon to put
forward himself the limits of the restraint which he proposes as
being reasonable, and to satisfy the Court that an order
by the Court
within those limits would be reasonable; he should not simply cast
the restraint as agreed upon in the lap of the Court
and expect the
Court itself to devise a more limited restraint that would be
reasonable.”
(Cf.
SIBEX
ENIGNEERING SERVICES (PTY) LTD v VAN WYK AND ANOTHER
1991 (2) SA 482
(T) te 488D
;
MACPAIL (PTY) LTD
v JANSE VAN RENSBURG AND OTHERS
1996 (1) SA 594
(T) te 599B-C
).
Geen getuienis was voorgelê waarom die area beperking
ingekort sou word nie, en was ook nie enige basis gelê waarom dit
nou juis,
soos deur die applikant voorgestel, ingekort moet word nie.
Ek behoort gevolglik nie aan die versoek gehoor te gee nie.
[12] Applikant se regshulp teen
tweede respondent is en kan slegs uit die
lex
Aquilia
ontleen
word. Regshulp kan egter slegs verleen word indien ‘n party,
in
casu
tweede
respondent, opsetlik inbreuk maak op ‘n kontraktuele verhouding
tussen applikant en eerste respondent sodat kontrakbreuk
uit daardie
inmenging voortvloei. (
ATLAS
ORGANIC FERTILIZERS v PIKKEWYN GHWANO
1981 (2) SA 173
(T) te 202G;
DUN
AND BRADSTREET (PTY) LTD v SOUTH AFRICAN MERCHANTS COMBINED CREDIT
BUREAU (CAPE) (PTY) LTD
1968 (1) SA 209
(K) te 215G
).
Die feite, selfs op waarskynlikhede regverdig as
afleiding dat tweede respondent nie met die aanstelling van eerste
respondent bewus
was van die handelsbeperking nie; tweede respondent
kon dus nie opsetlik vir eerste respondent oorreed het om sy kontrak
met applikant
te verbreek of inbreuk te maak op kontraksterme tussen
applikant en eerste respondent nie.
[13] Die
resultaat van voorafgaande is dat die aansoek nie kan slaag nie.
Geen rede doen voor waarom die koste nie die resultaat
sal volg nie.
[14] Die
volgende bevel word gemaak:
(1) Die
aansoek word afgewys.
(2) Applikant om eerste en tweede respondent se koste
insluitende die koste van 15 April 2004 te betaal.
__________________________
G. VAN COPPENHAGEN, R
Namens
Applikant:
Adv.
A.J.R. van Rhyn SC
Bygestaan
deur:
Adv.
S.J. Reinders
i.o.v.
Honey
Prokureurs
Bloemfontein
Namens
1ste Respondent:
Adv.
P.U. Fischer
i.o.v.
Symington
& De Kok
Namens
2de Respondent:
Adv.
F.W.A. Danzfuss SC
i.o.v.
Bezuidenhouts Ing.
/scd