THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025-0 09346
In the matter between:
BACKSPORTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
OFENTSE RETSHIDISITSWE MOTLHANKE First Respondent
O MEDIA VISUALS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 28 March 2025
JUDGMENT :
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA , J
2
[1] This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment and order of this Court handed down on 18 February 2025. In terms of that
judgment, this Court dismissed with costs the applicant’s application to enforce a restraint of trade agreement against the first respondent.
[2] The primary finding of the Court was that the applicant did not establish that it
had a protectable interest . The Court further held that even if the first respondent was
seen doing work that ‘ competes ’ with the applicant, the fact remained that the applicant
failed to establish that it has a protectable interest . Thirdly, it was held that in any event
it would be unreasonable to enforce the restraint agreement against the first respondent
after the applicant terminated his employment contract . Finally, the C ourt declined to
entertain the application to interdict the first respondent from uttering threats against the
applicant’s employees, harassing the applicant and its directors and employees and damaging or sabotaging the applicant’s assets, on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because there is no employment relationship between the parties .
[3] The applicant alleges that the Court erred in arriving at the above findings. The
grounds upon which leave to appeal and the written submissions filed in support of the
application have in my view been comprehensively addressed in the main judgment .
The applicant has in my view misconstrued the legal principles applicable to
applications to enforce restraint agreements .
[4] In determining thi s application, I considered t he test for applications for leave to
appeal , which is well established a s set out under section 17(1) of the Superior Court
Act.
1 Section 17(1) provides that:
‘Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that –
1 Act 10 of 2013; see also: Nxumalo v National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry (NBCCI) and
others [2016] ZALCJHB 212 at para 3; Seatlholo and others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and
Allied Workers Union and others (2016) 37 ILJ 1485 (LC) at para 3; Dexgroup (Pty) Ltd v Trustco Group
International (Pty) Ltd and others 2013 (6) SA 520 (SCA) at para 24 where the Supreme Court Appeal
remarked that the need to obtain leave to appeal is a valuable tool that ensur es that scarce judicial
resources are not spent on appeals that lack merit .
3
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration… ’
[5] Having considered the application for leave to appeal, the test applicable to the
application and having reflected on the main judgment, I am not persuaded that the
appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success nor am I persuaded that there is any other reason that would compel the matter being sent to the Labour Appeal Court. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed.
[6] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order :
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismis sed with no order as to costs.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa