THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025 - 114793
In the matter between:
DOT OFFICE SUPPLIES (PTY ) LTD Applicant
and
LEBELO, BADROONISHA First Respondent
PETERS, MANDY Second Respondent
NADS DISTRIBUTORS CC Third Respondent
Heard: 23 July 2025
Delivered: 28 July 2025
Summary: Application to declare judgment executable in terms of section 18
of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013. Requirements not met. Application
dismissed.
JUDGMENT
DANIELS J
2
Introduction
[1] This is an application brought on an urgent basis, to declare that an
earlier judgment and order of this court be made immediately executable,
despite the pending application for leave to appeal . This court must decide the
application in terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013
(“SCA Act”) read in the context of its jurisdiction and powers under sections 157
and 158 of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (“LRA”).
Material facts
[2] The business of the applicant is the sale and di stribution of office
stationary and related office supplies and equipment. The industry is an
intensive and competitive one, where customer relationships are of critical
importance.
[3] The first respondent was engaged, by the applicant , as a senior sales
executive, on a basic salary of R10 000, 00. Her duties there were to procure
sales from existing and new customers of the applicant. Just eleven months
after being employed by the applicant , the first respondent terminated her
employment by resigning, without notice, on 7 January 2025. In terms of first
respondent’s employment contract, however, her employment terminated on 31
January 2025.
[4] It is common cause that the first respondent was subject to a restraint of
trade (“restraint”) and a confidentiality agreement which she had concluded with
the applicant . The restraint contained a provision that prohibited the first
respondent from being employed by any competitor of the applicant, for a
period of 12 months after the termination of her employment , within a distance
of 150 kms from the applicant’s premises in Midrand, Gauteng.
[5] Immediately after her resignation, first respondent took up employment
with the third respondent, a competitor of the applicant. Interestingly, the first
3
respondent’s remuneration was not increased, or not increased significantly,
with this change of employer.
[6] The applicant brought an urgent application to give effect to the restraint,
which matter was set down on 7 May 2025, before the learned acting judge
Nhlapo AJ. The acting judge found in favour of the applicant in a judgment and
order issued on 27 June 2025. The court ordered that the restraint be enforced
for period of 12 months, starting on 31 January 2025.
[7] I was informed that a settlement proposal had been made, by the first
respondent, to the effect that the third respondent would move her to its
department dealing with the sale of medical equipment. Unfortunately, the
applicant rejected the proposal.
[8] On 3 July 2025, the applicant sent a letter to the third respondent
demanding compliance with the judgment and order issued on 27 June. The
applicant demanded that the third respondent terminate the services of the first
respondent. This prompted the first respondent to file an application for leave to
appeal (albeit that the application was not pursued on an urgent basis) and the
applicant to file this application.
[9] It is apparent from the papers that the first respondent supports three
children, one of whom is a minor. The first respondent states that she has no
experience apart from the stationary industry, though, plainly, she has some
experience in sales generally.
[10] Both parties agreed that the effect of the judgment and order issued on
27 June, is that the third respondent must terminate the services of the first
respondent. The first respondent states that this will likely lead to her
unemployment for several months , and possibly longer. This will impact on the
first respondent’s ability to support her three children. It is probable that the first
respondent will be forced to relocate, to be closer to her new employer , located
at least 150 kms from Midrand, Gauteng.
4
Urgency
[11] The legal principles relating to urgency are trite, and need not be
rehashed.1 In the exercise of my wide discretion on this issue, I propose to
consider the application on an urgent basis. In this regard, I note that the
application to enforce the restraint was heard on an urgent basis, the restraint
will be enforced for no more than six months (until the end of January 2026) and
the applicant has at all material times pursued this litigation efficiently and
diligently.
Legal Principles
[12] In an application to declare a judgment (pending an appeal) to be
executable, in terms of section 18(1) of the SCA Act, the applicant faces a
heavy burden. The applicant must show “ exceptional circumstances ”, but it
must also show the presence of irreparable harm to itself, and the absence of
irreparable harm to the respondent.
2
[13] While the meaning of the term “exceptional circumstances” in the context
of section 18(1) is not capable of an easy or neat definition, it may be
understood as “ indicative of something unusual, extraordinary, remarkable,
peculiar or simply different .”
3 There may be varying degrees of exceptionality,
peculiarity or difference. Whether the requirement is met will depend on the
context, the facts, and the circumstances of each case.
1 Jiba v Minister: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Other (2010) 31
ILJ 112 (LC) at para 18; East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty)
Ltd and others [2012] JOL 28244 (GSJ) at para 6; Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Limited and
Another v Nedbank Limited (081473/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 709 at para 18; Public Servants
Association of SA and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2016] ZALCJHB 439 at
paras 12 to 18; Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others [2019] 1 All SA 718 (GP) at para 33; AMCU
& others v Northam Platinum Ltd & another (2016) 37 ILJ 2840 (LC) at para 26
2 Incubeta Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Ellis and another 2014 (3) SA 189 (GJ)
2 Incubeta Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Ellis and another 2014 (3) SA 189 (GJ)
3 S v Liesching 2019 (4) SA 219 (CC)
5
[14] In Tyte Security Services CC v Western Cape Provincial Government
and others 4 the Supreme Court of Appeal held, in relation to the test for
irreparable harm as contemplated by section 18(3) , that irreparable harm is
“always dependent upon the factual situation in which the dispute arises, and
upon the legal principles that govern the rights and obligations of the parties in
the context of that dispute”. The exceptional circumstances is likely to be linked
to the harm which the applicant may suffer if the order is not implemented
immediately. The presence or absence of irreparable harm is not a completely
separate enquiry from the exceptional circumstances enquiry.
[15] However, of significance, our courts have held that where an applicant is
unable to show that the respondent will not suffer irreparable harm, that is fatal
to its application.
5
Analysis
[16] I do not believe that the applicant has satisfied the statutory criteria in
section 18(1) or 18(3) ; however it is only necessary for me to address the
alleged absence of irreparable harm to the first respondent.
[17] It is common cause that the first respondent earns a relatively low salary
with the third respondent . Her remuneration falls well below the threshold used
to identify “vulnerable employees” in section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act No. 75 of 1997.
6
[18] It is clear that the first respondent’s work experience is limited, largely, to
the stationary industry. The applicant did not demonstrate that her skills, and
experience, in the sale of stationary or office supplies, are transferrable to the
sales of any other goods or merchandise. Thus, on a balance of probabilities, I
accept that the first respondent may be unemployed for several months, or
4 2024 (6) SA 175 (SCA) at para [13]
5 Knoop NO and another v Gupta (Execution) 2021 (3) SA 135 (SCA) at para [48]
6 The annual threshold is R261 748,45 ( Two hundred and sixty -one thousand, and seven
6 The annual threshold is R261 748,45 ( Two hundred and sixty -one thousand, and seven
hundred and forty-eight rand, forty-five cents). See GN R5970 GG 52232 dated 7 March 2025
6
perhaps longer, if the restraint is immediately implemented. There can be little
doubt that unemployment, whether for a period of several months or longer,
with the resulting emotional and financial consequences , will occasion
irreparable harm to the first respondent, and her dependents. Furthermore, the
likely impact, of the immediate enforcement of the restraint, will be that the first
respondent must relocate to a new city or town, which will result in irreparable
harm to the first respondent, and her dependents.
[19] In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to show, on a balance of
probabilities, that the immediate implementation of the judgment and order of 27
June will not occasion irreparable harm to the first respondent. On this basis
alone, the application must fail. Insofar as irreparable harm is related to the
exceptional circumstances enquiry, the applicant also fails on that requirement.
Costs
[20] The applicant seeks to vindicate its rights and it has not acted
unreasonably. In the circumstances, I see no reason in law or fairness to mulct
the applicant in costs.
Conclusion
[21] In the circumstances, t he application is dismissed. There is no order as
to costs.
RN Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Applicant:
Ms C Bouwer
Snyman Attorneys
7
For the First Respondent:
Adv M Moola
Instructed by ST Attorneys