IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No:J1338/2023
In the matter between:
TWENTY FOUR MOTORS CC T/A FORD ERMELO Applicant
And
ANDRIES JOHANNES JACOBUS VENTER First Respondent
HELGAR KELDER Second Respondent
LUSAPHO ELVIS NQAKWANA Third Respondent
MTHOKOZISI MKHONZA Fourth Respondent
LWANDILE MBANGATHA Fifth Respondent
SHEDRACK SIPHO NZIMANDE Sixth Respondent
MLANDENI NKULULEKO MTHETHWA Seventh Respondent
THE CAR LOUNGE (PTY) LTD Eighth Respondent
Heard: 17 November 2023
Delivered: 02 February 2024 (This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the
Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing-
down is deemed to be 10h00 on 02 February 2024.)
2
JUDGMENT
MAHALELO, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an urgent application in terms of which the applicant seeks to enforce
restraint of trade clauses in the agreements which prohibit the first to seventh
respondents from taking employment or engaging in a business, partnership or taking
up a directorship in any company in competition with the applicant in Ermelo for a
period of 12 months.
[2] The respondents took issue with the urgency of the application. They
contended that the applicant self-created the urgency in the application in that it took
her two and a half months to enrol the application for hearing. It is generally accepted
that restraints of trade, by their definition, are urgent matters. However, the
requirements of Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules
1, remain relevant. I have considered
the papers of the respective parties in relation to the issue of urgency and without
repeating those details, and in the exercise of my discretion, I am satisfied that the
matter is sufficiently urgent and will accordingly be treated as such.
Background facts
[3] The applicant is a close corporation incorporated and registered in terms of the
laws of South Africa. The applicant was established in 1988 as a family -owned
business and the only Ford dealership in Ermelo. To this day, the applicant remains
the only Ford dealership in Ermelo, with the nearest other Ford dealership being some
90 kilometres away in Secunda. The applicant has been in the motor dealership
industry for a period of 35 years and sells new and second- hand motor vehicles. The
business of the applicant is to some extent service based. According to the deponent
of the founding affidavit, the motor dealership industry is a highly competitive industry
1 GN 1665 of 14 October 1996: Rules for the conduct of proceedings in the Labour Court.
3
which includes both big corporate entities and smaller individual companies and
clients. The applicant contracts with both commercial and private clients.
[4] It is common cause that the first to seventh respondents who for convenience
will be referred to as the respondents were employed by the applicant in different
positions. The first respondent was employed as a salesperson in 2011, he progressed
and in 2019 he was promoted to a sales manager. The second respondent was
employed as a stock controller. By the time the third to seventh respondents resigned
from the applicant, they were all vehicle sales men.
[5] The eighth respondent is a private company, duly incorporated in terms of the
Company Laws of the Republic of South Africa. The eighth respondent is a direct
competitor of the applicant. The eighth respondent has been joined to the proceedings
as it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.
[6] In addition to the employment contracts with the applicant, the respondents
concluded confidentiality and restraint agreements . The first respondent however
disputes the existence of same. I deal with the issue in the judgment.
[7] In terms of the contracts of employment, the respondents, amongst other
things, acknowledged that by virtue of their employment with the applicant, they would
have access to certain confidential information of the applicant, and this will end in
them being in possession of such information. The nature of the information that they
would have access to and ultimately possess was listed in the contracts of
employment. The respondents also in terms of their contracts, undertook not to divulge
or disclose any in formation to any unauthorized persons or bodies relating to any
aspect of their work and operations or processes of the applicant.
[8] The respondents also undertook not to start a business for their own account ,
enter into a partnership, accept directorship at any group or company accept any
position of employment at any company which directly or indirectly competes with the
applicant’s business, or which operates business in matters related to that of the
applicant.
4
[9] The respondents resigned from the applicant’s employment on 4 September
2023. They all took up employment with the eighth respondent.
The case for the applicant
[10] The case of the applicant is briefly that it has an unrivaled dedication to client
satisfaction, which has ensured its position of leadership in the motor dealership
industry in Ermelo for more than 35 years. The applicant says that it is one of the few
motor dealerships in Ermelo including the eight h respondent who has only recently
been established. According to the applicant, the motor dealership industry is a highly
competitive market which includes both big corporate entities and smaller individual
companies and clients. He contracts with both commercial and private customers. He
avers that he has over the period of 35 years formed strategic relationships with
clients, banks, service providers and suppliers. According to the applicant, the motor
dealership industry relies not only on the success of the company, but also on the
success and viability of the customers to whom services and vehicles are provided.
[11] The applicant contended further that it has formed a strong mutually profitable
relationship with its customers and in respect of certain customers, it has specific
markups which have been negotiated and agreed predominantly based on historic
good relationship between the parties. It is the applicant’s case that the historic
relationships provide it with a distinct competitive advantage a s it allows it not only to
predict the customer’s specific needs and advantages but also allows the applicant to
agree to discount structures and pricing models that are ideal and fit for each specific
customer. The applicant says that it has built a strong and mutually beneficial
relationship with the banks that provide finance to the deals it enters into with
customers. These banks have placed a strong level of trust in it and this allows it to
achieve finance for deals which other dealerships would not be able to achieve.
Furthermore, it has a strong and strategic relationship w ith suppliers that supply
second hand vehicles for sale to it, for which it has negotiated very good deals for bulk
purchases and which it has been able to achieve purely on a good track record a nd
trustworthiness.
5
[12] It is further the applicant’s case that it has developed methods of engaging with
its customers and service providers over the many years of doing business in the
industry. Additionally, it has invested significantly in training its personnel on customer
relations in order to identify the customer's needs better and to assist the customer
through each step of purchasing a vehicle as well as post purchase services such as
servicing of vehicles. The applicant also says that it focuses on personalized services
by ensuring that its customers and personnel are familiar with each other.
[13] The applicant submitted that in order to protect its business, it has gone to great
lengths to ensure that its competitors do not acquire its historical research and
methods of working on effective technical and industry know -how, p ricing models,
discount structures and information regarding relationships with key partners, service
providers, banks and customers both locally and abroad. Furthermore, it has invested
vast sums of money and energy to align and optimize its workflow and to equip its
employees to best serve its customers.
[14] The applicant say that its confidential information includes not only operational
data, but also commercial information that includes lists of service providers, customer
information, including their sales histories , r equirements, deal structures, discount
pricing models and costs relevant thereto. This also includes preferential rates and
commission structures with the banks that finance the deals, as well as preferential
buying arrangements with suppliers , who supply second- hand cars to it. It is the
applicant’s case that if the information described above becomes widely known or is
shared with competitors it will allow the competitor to unfairly compete with its prices
and operating models, methodologies, processes and personalized services and also
serve the customers’ needs thereby eroding the applicant’s position and competitive
advantage in the market or motor dealership industry.
[15] The applicant complains that on the day that the first respondent resigned from
his employment the first respondent contacted two of its suppliers, namely, KIA
(Durban and Woodmead) and paused the supply of vehicles which had been agreed
to with suppliers. The vehicles were then supplied to the eighth respondent shortly
after the first respondent commenced employment with the eighth respondent. The
applicant further says that two of his independent contractor drivers were instructed
6
by the first respondent on 7 September 2023 , to collect two Volkswagen Polos from
Woodmead and deliver them to the eighth respondent, and again on 8 September
2023 to collect two Kia Picanto motor vehicles from Durban and deliver them to the
eighth respondent. The applicant alleged that the eighth respondent did not buy from
either of these suppliers prior to the respondents taking up employment with the eighth
respondent and neither did the eighth respondent make use of the services of the
contractor drivers.
The respondents’ case
[16] As already stated, the first respondent disputes the existence of a restraint of
trade agreement. But for him, it is common cause that the six respondents are parties
to restraint of trade agreements with the applicant. I n their separate answering
affidavits, the respondents dealt in some detail with the reasons for their resignation
from the applicant which reasons related to the applicants contemplating to reduce its
workforce by 20 employees because of failure to meet sales targets. The respondents
complain that the applicant unilaterally changed their commission structure, thereby
repudiating their contracts of employment, which repudiation they have accepted. The
respondents further contended that the applicant has no protectable interest in the
form of confidential information and customer connections. According to the
respondents the information which is in their possession is not information that could
be deemed confidential and it would then not be worthy of protection. Furthermore,
the respondents pointed out that ordinary or junior employees do not have such a grip
or connect to clients that if the employee moves, the client will follow. According to the
respondents most of the applicant’s customers are individuals who after purchasing a
vehicle from the dealership may not return to purchase another vehicle and the
respondents argued that the applicant is attempting to use the restraint clauses in
order to stifle competition and to prevent the them from using their skill and knowledge,
which they already had when they commenced employment with the applicant and the
skill and knowledge which they gained whilst working for the applicant. The
respondents contend that an employer cannot prevent an ex-employee from using the
skill and knowledge which they already had, or which they acquired whilst working for
the employer because t hat forms part of the general stock of knowledge. The
respondents further submitted that t he restraint s of trade agreements are
7
unreasonable because they prohibit them from being employed by a competitor of the
applicant for a period of two and a half years and within a geographical area w ith a
radius of 300 kilometres . The respondents therefore contended that the effect of the
restraint of trade clauses is to render them professionally inactive in their chosen trade.
The respondents lastly contended that the restraint s of trade clauses are against
public policy and the public interest and they should therefore not be enforced.
Is there a restraint of trade agreement between the applicant and the first respondent?
[17] The agreement which the applicant relies on i n respect of the first respondent
was concluded on 31 January 2011. On 1 February 2019, the applicant and the first
respondent entered into an addendum to the contract of employment. O n 12
November 2020, the applicant and t he first respondent entered into another written
addendum to the contract of employment. Clause 16 provides that:
‘The employee will not divulge any information to any unauthorised persons or bodies
relating to any aspect of his work or to any of the operations or p rocesses of the
employer. Such information will include methods, processes, computer software,
documentation, client lists, programs, trade secrets, technical information, drawings,
financial information, or any other information. w hich could be damaging to the
employers operations or which could benefit other parties to the detriment of the
employer. Such restrictions will apply during and after the employee’s employment
with the employer.’
[18] The applicant’s case is that; the first respondent has breached a material term
of the restraint of trade agreement b y taking up employment with the eighth
respondent. The first respondent disputes that he is bound by a restraint agreement
because he resigned from the applicant’s employment towards the end of January
2021, as he wanted to withdraw his provident fund. He recommenced his employment
with the applicant on 1 February 2021. It is for this reason that his pay slips from
February 2021 recorded his employment date as 1 February 2021. When he
recommenced his employment he did not sign a new employment contract.
[19] The applicant’s version is that i t assisted the first respondent and other
employees to submit documents to the Provident Fund in order to cash their pensions
8
because the first respondent was in financial distress at the time. The applicant
submitted that it intentionally misrepresented to the fund that the first respondent had
resigned when in fact he had not. The applicant submitted that this was done in order
to assist the first respondent as an employee and the applicant derived no benefit from
the misrepresentation. The applicant stated that there was never a break in the first
respondent’s employment with the applicant and the first respondent all along knew
that there was a contract of employment containing restraint of trade and
confidentiality clauses which he had signed with the applicant.
[20] I am not persuaded that the first respondent is not bound by a restraint of trade
agreement. The objective facts do not favour his version. When the applicant sought
an undertaking from the first respondent, at first he gave an undertaking that he would
not contact the applicant’s customers for a period of six months. There would not have
been any need for him to give an undertaking if he knew that he had resigned from
the applicant and there was no contract of employment in existence.
Legal principles
[21] It is trite that the restraints of trade agreements are valid and binding and as a
matter of principle, enforceable unless the enforcement thereof is considered to be
unreasonable
2. A restraint of trade agreement will generally be considered
unreasonable and thus contrary to public policy, if it does not protect some legally
recognizable interest of the party seeking to enforce it, but merely seeks to eliminate
competition.
3
[22] A party seeking to enforce a restraint must invoke the restraint agreement and
prove its breach. A respondent who seeks to avoid the restraint bears an onus to
demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the restraint is unenforceable because
2 Magna Alloys and Research (SA) Ltd v Ellis (Magna Alloys) 1984 (4) SA 874 (A); [1984] ZASCA 116
at 891 B-C
3 Automotive Tooling Systems Pty Ltd v Wilkens and Others 2007 (2) SA 271 (SCA) ; [2006] ZASCA
167, Mozart Ice Cream Franchises Pty Ltd v Davidoff and Another 2009 (3) SA 78 (C); [2008] ZAWCHC
118 at 82H -83C
9
it is unreasonable 4. In order to determine whether a restraint is reasonable, the
following questions as stated in Basson v Chilwan and Others5, must be answered:
(a) Does the one party have an interest that deserves protection after the
termination of the agreement?
(b) If so is that interest threatened by the other party?
(c) In that case, does such interest weigh quantitatively and qualitatively against
the interests of the other party not to be economically active and unproductive?
(d) Is there an aspect of public policy having nothing to do with the relationship
between the parties that requires that the restraint be maintained or rejected?
[23] In Reddy v Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd (Reddy)6, the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) posited a fifth consideration, namely whether the restraint goes
further than necessary to protect the interest. The Court held that this consideration
corresponds with section 36(1)(e) of the Constitution, requiring a consideration of less
restrictive measures to achieve the purpose of the limitation and that “t he value
judgment required by Basson necessarily requires determining whether the restraint
or limitation is ‘reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on
human dignity, equality and freedom’”.7
[24] The proprietary interest of an applicant that is worthy of protection can be found
in one or both of the two considerations, namely, (a) confidential information that could
be used by a competitor to gain a competitive advantage ( trade secrets). (b)
Relationship with customers, potential customers, suppliers and others that go to
make up what is usually called trade connections.
[25] In Labournet Pty Ltd v Jankielsohn and Another
8, the court held:
‘… A restraint is only reasonable and enforceable if it serves to protect and interest ,
which in terms of the law, requires and deserves protection. The list of such interest is
not closed, but confidential information ( trade secrets ) and customer or
trade(connection) are recognized as being such interests…’
4 Magna Alloys supra
5 [1993] ZASCA 61; 1993 (3) SA 742 (AD).
6 [2006] ZASCA 135; 2007 (2) SA 486 (SCA).
7 Reddy at para 17.
8 [2017] ZALAC 7; (2017) 38 ILJ 1302 (LAC) at para 4.
10
[26] When enquiring into whether information is worthy of protection the information
relied upon by the applicant has to meet the following requirements(a) It relates to and
is capable of application in the trade industry, (b) Most of it is secret and confidential ,
(c) objectively viewed it is of economic or business value to the plaintiff. The enquiry
into whether information can be found to be confidential in this context is an objective
one.9 One has to bear in mind that the classification of the information is not what
cloaks it with confidentiality. Something that might seem common sense could be
declared to be confidential and worthy of protection whereas information that might be
useful might still not be classified as information worthy of protection.
[27] The need of an employer to protect its trade connections arises where the
employee has access to customers and is in a position to build up a particular
relationship with the customer. It is sufficient for the applicant to show that the
customer contacts exist and that they can be exploited by the former employee. Once
the conclusion has been reached that the former employee could easily induce
customers to follow him to a new business, and the new employer is a competitor of
the applicant, the risk of harm is apparent
10.
[28] The onus is on the respondent to prove the unreasonableness of the restraint
11.
Once the applicant has shown that there is confidential information to which the
employee had access and which he could transmit to his new employer the applicant
is entitled to the protection afforded by the restraint.
Analysis and conclusion
[29] The respondents argued that the information the applicant complains about is
freely available in that it is information that every motor dealership can access with
little effort on their side. On the facts of this case that does not seem to be the case.
According to the respondents , all of the customers, suppliers and service providers
that they had contact with whilst employed by the applicant were individuals and or
9 Reddy .
10 Rawlins v Caravantruck (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 537 (A) 541 C-D
11 Reddy supra.
11
companies with which they had relationships, some of which were gained before they
started their employment with the applicant. In Refinery Post Production Facilities Pty
Ltd v Lautre12, Mahosi J stated the following in connection with customer connections:
‘Therefore, even if an employee had established a relationship with the clients prior to
the commencement of his or her employment , the fact that his or her current
employment allowed for the relationship to be strengthened and for the employee to
gain an influence over such customers would then make those customer connections
an asset of the employer. Further, it has not been argued that the relationships with
all the clients on the list were from before her employ. In fact, she continuously speak
of Ster-Kinekor and Nu Metro, however his clients were not exhaustive of the list.’
[30] In Braven S.A Pty Ltd v Pillay and Another
13 the court held:
‘Whilst the existence and identity of potential clients is well known in what is a
competitive market , whatever links Mr. Pillay has been able to forge with the
applicant's customers were forged in the course of his employment with the applicant.
His employment was as a sales representative. Part and parcel of his duties was to
find customers for the applicant’s products. The fact that he did so and enjoyed some
success does not ensure to his advantage in seeking to resist the enforcement of the
restrained undertaking. The customers that he procured by his efforts were the
customers of the applicant and the trade connection established in consequence of
his efforts in the trade connection between the applicant and the customers, not one
between himself and the customers. However, to the extent that the applicant has built
up a trade connection with its customers in Kwazulu Natal through the efforts of Mr.
Pillay over the eight years of his employment it is entitled to protect itself against being
deprived of that connection by Mr Pillay’s activities on behalf of a competitor. That is
the very reason why it sought from him to obtain an agreement not to accept
employment with a competitor for a period of two years after leaving its employ. It
suffices for the applicant to show that trade connections through customer contact
exist and can be exploited by the former employee if employed by a competitor.’
12 [2018] ZALCJHB 263.
13 [2008] ZAKZHC 22.
12
[31] In the undertakings the respondents provided to the applicant the respondents
boldly stated that they will not render services to the applicant’s clients or previous
clients. This implies knowledge on their part of the applicant’s entire client base.
[32] In the matter of Den Braven, SA Pty Ltd supra, the court held that:
The need of an employer to protect his trade connections arises where the employee
has access to customers and is in a position to build up a particular relationship with
the customers so that when he leaves the employer’s service, he could easily induce
the customers to follow him to a new business. Whether the criteria referred to are
satisfied is essentially a question of fact in each case and in many , one of degree.
Much will depend on the duties of the employee, his personality , the frequency and
duration of contact between him and the customers , where such contact takes place
what knowledge he gains of their requirements and business < the general nature of
their relationship ( i ncluding whether an attachment is formed between them, the
extent to which customers rely on the employee, and how personal their association
is), how competitive the rival businesses are , in the case of a salesman, the type of
product being sold and whether there is evidence that customers were lost after the
employee left …
[33] In this case the respondents have close contact and influence over the
applicant’s customers. The information as to current clients and future clients and what
service they are used to receive from the applicant would be capable of application in
the trade industry. It is quite clear that the respondents have the applicant’s customer
connections who they could induce to take more of the business to the eighth
respondent. Indeed, it appears that sales at the applicant had dropped off significantly
since the respondents left the employ of the applicant and that the eighth respondent
has benefited; but the figures are not conclusive. That does not matter. It is enough
that the respondents could potentially, in breach of their restraint agreements, induce
customers to move the rest of their business to the eighth respondent.
[34] It is evident that as sales persons the respondents were privy to confidential
information relating to pricing; and that they had extensive customer connections with
the applicant. They are uniquely positioned to use this information for the benefit of
13
the eighth respondent. They are clearly in breach of their restraint of trade agreements
in this regard.
[35] The respondents’ other defence is that the applicant repudiated their contracts
of employment and they have accepted such repudiation. The papers before court
shows that the applicant followed the correct procedure before it could deal with the
issue of reduction of the respondents’ commission. In my view the respondents’
defence has no merit.
[36] The reasonableness or otherwise of the restraint of trade agreement quite often
depends on its duration and geographic scope. The principle regarding the
reasonableness of the restraint clause is that the duration thereof should not be any
longer than is necessary to protect the interest of the employer in cases such as this.
In deciding whether or not it would be reasonable to enforce a restraint of trade, the
court must make a value judgment, mindful of the following policy considerations: (a)
that public interest requires that parties should comply with their contractual
obligations, a notion expressed by the maxim pacta servanda sunt; and (b) all persons
should, in the interests of society, be productive and permitted to engage in trade and
commerce or their professions. Both considerations reflect not only common law but
also constitutional values. In Reddy, the court held that: “contractual autonomy is part
of freedom informing the constitutional value of dignity, and it is by entering into
contracts th at an individual takes part in economic life. In this sense freedom to
contract is an integral part of the fundamental right referred to in section 22”.14.
[37] In weighing up the respective interests of the applicant and the respondents I
am not persuaded that the effect on their freedom to work is disproportionate. They
can work for any employer anywhere, provided they do not breach the restraint
clauses for a period of 12 months.
[38] In Magna Alloys the court held that a court may, in the public interest, order that
either the whole or only a part of the restraint on trade be enforced.
14 Reddy at para 15
14
[39] I my view, the restraint is not unreasonable. The applicant has established a
clear right for the relief it seeks. The respondents have committed and continue to
commit an injury, as demonstrated above. The remaining question is whether the
applicant has another satisfactory remedy .15 The theoretical remedy of a damages
claim in due course is cold comfort to the applicant. A damages claim in these
circumstances is difficult to quantify and does not protect its rights at this stage. The
applicant has satisfied the requirements for a final interdict.
Cost
[40] Both parties have asked for costs to follow the result. I see no reason why that
should not be the case.
[41] In the result I make the following order:
Order
1. T he applicant’s non-compliance with the rules of court pertaining to service and
process is condoned and the application is treated as urgent.
2. I t is declared that the first respondent is in breach of the provisions of the
restraint of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the
applicant and the first respondent on 31 January 2011, together with the addendums
thereto entered into on 1 February 2019 and 12 November 2020 respectively, by
directly or indirectly competing with the applicant.
3. I t is declared that the 2nd respondent is in breach of the provisions of the
restraint of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the
applicant and the 2nd Respondent on 1 August 2014 by directly or indirectly competing
with the applicant.
4. I t is declared that third respondent is in breach of the provisions of the restraint
of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the applicant
15 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221.
15
and the third respondent on 18 May 2018, together with the addendums thereto
entered into on 1 February 2019 and 26 October 2020 respectively, by directly or
indirectly competing with the applicant.
5. It is declared that the 4th Respondent is in breach of the provisions of the
restraint of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the
applicant and the 4th Respondent on 17 May 2023 by directly or indirectly competing
with the applicant.
6. It is declared that the 5th responded is in breach of the provisions of the restraint
of trade contained in the written contract entered into between the applicant and the
respondent on 18 May 2021 by directly or indirectly competing with the applicant.
7. It is declared that the 6th respondent is in breach of the provisions of the
restraint of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the
applicant and the six respondent on 16 February 2023 by directly or indirectly
competing with the applicant.
8. It is declared that the 7th Respondent is in breach of the provisions of the
restraint of trade agreement contained in the written contract entered into between the
applicant and the 7th Respondent on 16th February 2023, by directly or indirectly
competing with the applicant.
9. The 1st to 7th respondents are interdicted and restrained for a period of 12
months, calculated from 4 September 2023, this being the date on which the 1st to 7th
respondents resigned, with immediate, effect from their employ with the applicant
from:
9.1 Starting a business for their own account, which in any way whatsoever,
whether directly or indirectly, competes with the applicant’s business interests or which
does business or trade in matters related to that of the applicant, within a region that
is within 300 kilometres(three hundred kilometres) from the applicants main business
premises in Ermelo, Mpumalanga, South Africa.
9.2 Entering into a partnership, accepting directorship at any group or any
company, accepting any position or employment at any company or group undertaking
16
or business which in any way whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly competes with
the applicants business interest or which does business or trade in matters related to
that of the applicant within a region that is within 300 kilometres from the applic ants
main business premises in Ermelo, Mpumalanga, South Africa.
10. T he 1st to 7th respondents are interdicted and restrained not to divulge to any
person any of the applicant ’s confidential information. The aforesaid includes any
methods, operations, processes, computer software, documentation, client lists,
programmes, trade secrets, technical information, drawings, financial information or
any other information which could be damaging to the applicant’s operations or which
could benefit other persons to the detriment of the applicant.
11 The first to seven respondents are interdicted and prohibited from being
engaged in any form of employment or engage in any capacity whatsoever with the
eighth Respondent that may breach their restraint of trade agreement with the
applicant.
12. T he 1st to 7th respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application.
MB Mahalelo
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Applicant: Sanette Lancaster
Lancaster Kungoane Attorneys
For the Respondent: Gerrie Ebersohn
Gerrie Ebersohn Attorneys Inc