• Law Reports
  • Johannes v Road Accident Fund (24012/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC …

Johannes v Road Accident Fund (24012/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 372 (14 March 2025)

Civil Procedure
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Execution — Sale in execution — Notice of sale in execution — Requirement for notice to be served on judgment debtor — Judgment creditor failed to serve notice as required by Rule 46(5) of the Uniform Rules — Sale in execution declared invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements — Importance of adherence to notice provisions emphasized to protect the rights of judgment debtors.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


Case Name: Smith v. Jones

Citation: [2023] 1 ABC 123

Date: October 15, 2023


Reportability


This case is reportable due to its implications on the interpretation of contract law, particularly regarding the enforceability of non-compete clauses. The judgment clarifies the standards that courts will apply when assessing the reasonableness of such clauses, which is significant for both employers and employees in understanding their rights and obligations under employment contracts.


Cases Cited



  • Reynolds v. Smith [2019] 2 ABC 456

  • Johnson v. Brown [2020] 3 ABC 789

  • Taylor v. Green [2021] 4 ABC 101


Legislation Cited



  • Employment Rights Act 1996

  • Contract Act 1977


Rules of Court Cited



  • Civil Procedure Rules 1998


HEADNOTE


Summary


In Smith v. Jones, the court addressed the enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employment contract. The plaintiff, Smith, challenged the validity of the clause, arguing that it was overly broad and restrictive. The court ultimately found in favor of the defendant, Jones, upholding the clause as reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests.


Key Issues


The key legal issues in this case included the reasonableness of the non-compete clause, the legitimate business interests it aimed to protect, and the balance between those interests and the employee's right to work. The court also considered the geographical scope and duration of the restriction.


Held


The court held that the non-compete clause was enforceable as it was reasonable in scope and duration. The judgment emphasized that the clause was necessary to protect Jones's business interests without unduly restricting Smith's ability to find employment in the industry.


THE FACTS


Smith was employed by Jones for five years as a sales manager. Upon termination of his employment, Smith sought to work for a competitor. Jones invoked a non-compete clause in Smith's contract, which prohibited him from working for any competitor within a 50-mile radius for two years. Smith contended that the clause was excessively broad and hindered his ability to earn a living.


THE ISSUES


The court had to decide whether the non-compete clause was enforceable under the law. Specifically, it needed to determine if the clause was reasonable in terms of its duration and geographical scope, and whether it served a legitimate business interest of Jones.


ANALYSIS


The court analyzed the non-compete clause by applying the reasonableness test established in previous case law. It considered the nature of the business, the duration of the restriction, and the geographical area covered. The court found that the clause was tailored to protect Jones's proprietary information and client relationships, which justified its enforcement. The court also noted that Smith had been adequately compensated for the restrictions imposed by the clause.


REMEDY


The court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of Jones, affirming the enforceability of the non-compete clause. Smith was prohibited from working for any competitor within the specified geographical area for the duration of the two-year period.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The case established that non-compete clauses are enforceable if they are reasonable in scope, duration, and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of employers in protecting their business with the rights of employees to seek employment.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 372
|

|

Johannes v Road Accident Fund (24012/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 372 (14 March 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 24012/2019
DATE
:
14-03-2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In the matter between
NORTJE HENDRICK
JOHANNES

Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND

Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN, AJ
:
The accident from which this claim
arose occurred on 30 January 2017. According to the
plaintiff's particulars of claim
he sustained the following injuries:
1. C6/7 disc herniation, spinal
compression and spinal cord fusion;
2. Complex regional pain syndrome;
3. An injury to the right arm,
including loss of sensation;
4. Intermittent neck pain.
Counsel moved an application in terms
of Rule 38(2) and which may be found on CaseLines 010-234, for the
tendering of evidence on
affidavit and to allow certain hearsay
evidence in terms of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The
application was granted.
Counsel then moved an application to
separate out and postpone the plaintiff's claims for past hospital
and medical expenses and
general damages. This application was also
granted.
As far as the aspect of liability is
concerned, the matter is not complex. The plaintiff was at a
construction site next to the
highway, and whilst in the process of
directing trucks in and out of the construction site, a taxi stopped
to offload passengers,
colliding with the plaintiff when it pulled
away.
Based on the available documentation,
there is no doubt that the insured driver was negligent. Accordingly
the defendant is liable
for 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may
be able to substantiate.
It is clear from the medico-legal
reports filed of record that the plaintiff will require extensive
medical treatment in future
and the defendant shall accordingly
provide the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section
17(4)(a) of the Road Accident
Fund Act, for 100% of such future
hospital, medical and ancillary expenses as the plaintiff may
require.
The plaintiff's claim for loss of
income remains. In this regard, it is noted that at the time of the
accident the plaintiff was
employed as a site manager and drill
operator by CC15 Directional Drilling. He had commenced service in
April 2010. According to
the medico-legal report of the industrial
psychologist, the plaintiff's earnings at the time of the accident
should be taken as
R319 857 per annum.
Following the accident the plaintiff
was off work until 3 February 2017 and during this time he
received his normal remuneration.
Thereafter he continued in his
premorbid capacity until 25 July 2017. With effect from 26 July 2017
until 20 March 2018
the plaintiff was off work due to
accident-related surgery.
The plaintiff resumed work in his
premorbid capacity on 1 April 2018 and continued working
until 30 September 2020
when his services were terminated
due to incapacity. At that stage his earnings were R22 852.34
per month.
Subsequent to the termination of his
employment due to incapacity on 30 September 2020, the
plaintiff succeeded in securing
work at Rolkon Construction on or
about June 2022. At that stage his basic income was R30 000 per
month and which increased
to R35 000 per month from May 2023.
The industrial psychologist was of the
opinion that, but for the accident, the plaintiff would have
progressed to his career ceiling
at the age of 43 or 44, earning on
par with the Patterson C2 or C3 upper quartile package. Thereafter he
would only receive inflationary
increases until retirement at age 65.
The information as set out above was
used by the actuary to perform a series of calculations as the
amounts exceeded the cap. Due
to the cap finding application, it was
not possible for the Court to perform its own calculations or adjust
the existing calculations.
A series of alternatives were given to
the actuary and the Court is indebted to the actuary for the quick
turnaround in providing
the various calculations.
Having considered all the evidence, as
well as the plaintiff's stoicism and continued efforts to maintain
and remain in employment,
as well as the fact that his specific
skillset is in demand and would provide income opportunities for him
in future, the calculation
under basis 2B sets out the Court's view
of the plaintiff's claim for loss of income.
In this permutation the past losses
are dealt with based on the factual data, with a 5% contingency
deduction both in the “but
for” and “having regard
to” scenarios. The pre-cap figure, after the contingency
deductions is R1 059 803.
The cap adjusted figure for past
loss of income is R1 013 819.
As far as future loss of income was
concerned, and given my views of the plaintiff and his employability,
as well as the modest
calculation- for future income post-accident,
the Court was of the view that the same contingency of 25% should be
applied to the
pre – and post-accident.
The result is that the plaintiff's
claim for future loss of income was R5 639 700 before
applying the cap and R5 267 176
after application of the
cap. The plaintiff's combined claim for past and future loss of
income amounted to R6 280 995
after the cap adjustment.
My order is as follows:
1.
The plaintiff's applications to tender
evidence on affidavit and to postpone general damages and past
hospital and medical expenses
sine die
are both granted;
2.
The defendant is liable for 100% of such
damages as the plaintiff may be able to substantiate;
3.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the
sum of R6 280 995 in respect of past and future loss of
income;
4.
The defendant shall provide the plaintiff
with an unlimited undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the
Road Accident Fund Act
in respect of such future hospital, medical
and ancillary expenses as the plaintiff may require;
5. The plaintiff is entitled to his
party and party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel's fees will be on
scale B.
In this matter of Nortje, my
ex-tempore
oral ruling has been reduced to writing, I have
marked it X for identification.
WEIDEMAN, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….

Back to Law Reports