IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 069613/2025
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
__________________________
SIGNATURE
Date: 24 June 2025
In the matter between:
LYNNWOOD HAIR & BEAUTY Applicant
t/a SkinPhD Lynnwood Bridge
and
NALEDI SARAH MASEKO 1st Respondent
THE JAMES HAIR & CO. 2nd Respondent
LUME FERREIRA (nee SENEKAL) 3rd Respondent
JUDGEM ENT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Mooki J
1 The applicant seeks relief to preserve restraint and con fidentiality
underta kings mad e in its favour by the first respondent (Maseko). The
applicant c ontends that Maseko breached those undertakings when Maseko
took up empl oyment with the second respondent. The Court agreed that
the matter was urgent and heard it as such.
2 The a pplicant operates a business that is styled “SkinPhD Lynnwood
Bridge ”. The bus iness operates from premises in Lynnwood Bridge,
Pretoria. It is a business in hairdressing, cosmetology, beauty and skincare
industry. Services include advanced skin therapies and a suite of nail and
hair treatments. It employs aesthetic therapists and n ail technicians.
3 The applicant contends that the seco nd and third respondents conduct
business in the same industry as the applicant , located two kilometres from
the applicant ’s premises. Each of Maseko and the third respondent denied
that Maseko breached her undertakings.
4 The applicant employed Maseko as a nail technician. Maseko rendered
high -end nail treatments and services, tailored to the unique preferences of
individual clients. The applicant contends that Maseko gained knowledge of
the service pre ferences, schedules, product choices, personal
circumstances, and broader aesthetic requirements of customers of the
applicant. The applicant says that Maseko’s job put her in prolonged
contact with clients of the applicant and that Maseko is able to explo it th ose
connections to the detriment of the applicant.
3
5 The applicant contends that Maseko has been exposed to confidential client
databases, pricing models, booking schedules, promotional strategies and
trade secrets , which constitute proprietary informat ion safeguarded under
Maseko’s confidentiality and restraint undertakings.
6 The restraint is embodied in a contract of employment between the
applicant and Maseko, concluded on 21 September 2021. The restraint
applied for 12 months from the date upon which Maseko left the employ of
the applicant. The area of the restraint is a 15 km radius from the premises
where Maseko was stationed during her employment. The restraint applied
to the following activities: “Hair, Beauty, Cosmetic and nail enhancement
servic es.” The confidentiality obligation precludes Maseko from disclosing
any information relat ing to the applicant ’s operations. Such information
includes client databases, pricing structures, stock results, turnover figures,
supplier arrangements, marketing s trategies and terms of employment.
7 Maseko is said to have breac hed her restrai nt and confidential ity
undertakings by accepting employment with the second respondent, said to
be a competi tor located a mere two kilometres from the applicant. The
applicant says that the third respondent knowingly engaged Maseko in
clear violation of express contractual restraints . The applicant further
contends that t he second and third respondents may benefit from Maseko ’s
misappropriation of the applicant ’s client relation ships and commercially
sensitive information.
8 Maseko resigned her employment with the applicant on 30 April 2025 . The
restraint commenced on that date. The applicant contends that Maseko has
4
been working at premises under the name of the second respondent from 1
May 2025. The applicant launched this application on 16 May 2025 ,
contending that Maseko ’s “continued employment with the seco nd
respondent, contrary to th e terms of her restraint and confidentiality
obligations, constitutes not only a breach of con tract, but also a mounts to
unlawful competition. ”
9 Maseko averred that the applicant never made her privy to any confidential
information belo nging to the applicant . She also had no details of suppliers
of the applicant. She did not, whilst in the employ o f the applicant, contact
custome rs of the applicant. Those customers made reservations with the
applicant ’s receptionist, who in turn would inform Maseko that a particular
custome r had made bookings.
10 Maseko denied soliciting customers of the applicant following her
resignation . Customers of the applicant contacted Maseko for her services.
This occurred after th ose customers were informed that Maseko no longer
worked for the applicant.
11 She contended that she cultivated relationship s with some clients , which was a
consequence of her personality and unique personal skill, know -how, and
expertise. Her personality and skills were not given to her by the applicant. She
denied that her relationship with customers of the applicant was a protectable
interest subject to a restraint. Customers of the applicant chose her. She denied
unlawful compet ition as a result.
5
12 Maseko denied being employed by either the second or th ird respondents.
She contended that the third respondent was assessing her capa bilities,
with a view to possibly employing her in the future.
13 The third respondent den ied employing Maseko. She also denied that the
applicant had shown a proprietary interest capable of being protected by
the law. She further pointed out that clients are attached to a nail
technician and will seek the services of such a technician wher ever the
technicia n is located ; with a salon serving as a setting for the inter action
between a client and a na il technician.
Analysis
14 Maseko denied being employed by the second or third responde nts. The
applicant did not press this claim. The appl icant ’s reply to Maseko ’s denial
was that Maseko had an understanding with the third respondent and that
Maseko was under some probation under the control and instruction of the
third respondent. This is not the case made in the founding affidavit.
15 The applicant ’s case is that Maseko took up employment with the second
respondent on resigning her employment with the applicant. The third
respondent was a director and shareholder of the second respondent ,
which business included oper ating as a nail s alon. The second respondent
was placed on final liquidation on 15 Apr il 2025. Liquidators were
appointed on 19 May 2025. The applicant complained that th e third
respondent did not draw th ese facts to the attenti on of the applicant when
the applicant reques ted undertakings by the third respondent . The
6
applicant did not persi st with the case that the second respondent
employed Maseko.
16 The third res pondent denied employing Maseko. Her case was that she is
consideri ng establishing a new business in the same indu stry as that of the
applicant and that the new company could possibly employ Maseko.
17 The applicant ’s ultimate case was that Maseko was rendering services to
customers of the applicant from premises in which t he second respondent
used to conduct a competing business. The applicant did not persist that
the third respondent was, in fact, Maseko ’s employer.
18 Maseko denied breaching her undertakings to the applicant. She denied
being privy to confi dential informati on belonging to the applicant . She also
denied having access to suppliers of the applicant.
19 The applicant ’s case is that Maseko was exposed to confidential client
databases, pricing models, booking schedules, promotional strategies and
trade secrets , whic h constitute proprietary information safeguarded under
Maseko’s confidentiality and restraint undertakings. This was the primary
basi s for the relief being sought by the applicant.
20 The third respondent averred that there was no evidence supporting that
Maseko acquired confidential information, trade secrets and the like ; that the
Court was not told what the alleged confidential information or secrets entailed,
or how it was accessed or conveyed to Maseko.
7
21 The applicant did n ot respond to Maseko ’s denial th at Maseko was not
privy to confidential information. The a pplicant also did not respond to
criticism by the third respondent that there was no evidence supporting
the applicant ’s claim that Maseko had access to confidential client
databases, pricing models , booking schedules, promotional strategies and
trade secrets .
22 Mas eko denied that she had access to any confidential information. Maseko
was not privy to the details of applicant ’s supplie rs – the appli cant gave
Maseko products to use . There was no eviden ce that Mase ko knew how and
from whom the applicant sourced those products
23 Maseko denied contactin g customers of the applicant. She explained how
she dealt with those customers whilst employed by the applicant .
Customers made bookings through a receptio nist. The receptionist wou ld
then inform Maseko that a booking had been made. Maseko would
thereafter engage a customer. Customers of the applicant sought M aseko
out after Maseko resigned her job.
24 The substance of the applicant’s case is that Maseko became e xposed to the
applicant’s confidential client databases, pricing models, booking
schedules, promotional strategies and trade secrets during her
employment. There was no ev idence in support of how Maseko became
aware of each listed consideration. The appli cant did not say how Maseko
infringed each such consideration. For example the applicant is required to
have shown that Maseko was aware of the applicant ’s pricing models and
8
that Maseko, on leaving the employ of the applicant, was exploiting such
models.
25 The applicant has not shown th e confidential client databases, pricing
models, booking schedules, promotional strategies and trade secrets that
constitute proprietary information safeguarded under Maseko’s
confidentiality and restraint undertakings. Masek o cannot be s aid to have
breached confidentiality and restraint undertakings as a result.
26 I make the following order :
(1) The application is urgent.
(2) The applica tion is dismissed.
(3) The applicant is ordered to pay costs.
_____________________
O M ooki
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Counsel for the applicant : C Goosen
Instructed by: Serfontein Viljoen & Swart
Counsel for the first respondent : M Louw
Instructed by: Wiese & Wiese Inc.
Counsel for the third respondent : M Louw
Instructed by: Ndou van Greunen Attorneys
9
Date heard: 29 May 2025
Date of judgement: 24 June 2025