IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
Reportable/Not Reportable
Case No. 2026-082046
In the matter between:
FIDELITY SERVICES GROUP (PTY)LTD FIRST APPLICANT
FIDELITY ADT (PTY) LTD SECOND APPLICANT
and
ROBIN RICHARD GOVEIA FIRST RESPONDENT
MACH 1 SECURITY CC SECOND RESPONDENT
Coram: MANCA AJ
Heard: 20 April 2026
Delivered: 28 April 2026
ORDER
1 The application is heard as a matter of urgency.
2 The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs
of counsel on scale C.
JUDGMENT
Manca AJ:
[1] The applicant s are companies in the Fidelity Services group of
companies. The first applicant is the holding company of some 31
companies operating throughout the Republic of South Africa (“the
Republic”) which companies offer a variety of security services in both the
residential and commercial markets. The second applicant is one of those
companies. It provides 24-hour armed response services and CCTV services
to thousands of customers throughout the Republic.
[2] The first respondent was previously employed by the second
applicant. He was employed in March 2017 and held positions in various
geographical locations throughout the Republic until his resignation which
took effect on 30 September 202 5. For the last 15 months of his
employment, he was employed as the second applicant’s regional sales
manager in the Western Cape . He appears to have extensive experience in
the security in dustry as he commenced employment with ADT which later
became the second applicant as far back as 2004.
[3] The second respondent has carried business for some 20 years in the
Fish Hoek and Simonstown area of the Cape Peninsula referred to
colloquially and by the parties as the Deep South. Until recently its primary
business was the provision of guarding and technical services such as the
installation and maintenance of alarm systems. It now also offers monitoring
and response. It does not provide armed patrols.
[4] Shortly after the first respondent commenced employment with the
second Applicant , he concluded a restraint of trade agreement (“the
restraint”) with the first applicant and some 32 of its sub sidiaries and
associates which included the second applicant.
[5] This is an urgent application in which the applicants seek to enforce
the restraint. The first respondent opposes the application. No relief was
sought against the second respondent unless it opposed the application. It did
not oppose the application. The applicants and the first respondent agreed
that the application was urgent, and the appl ication was enrolled and heard
as such.
[6] In terms of the restraint the first respondent agreed, inter alia, not to
being engaged or concerned directly or indirectly in a business similar to
that of the second applicant or in a business which competes with the second
applicant.
[7] He also undertook that subsequent to the termination of his
employment he would not directly or indirectly canvas for or elicit any
business from existing customers of the second applicant and tha t for an
indefinite period thereafter he would not disclose any of the second
applicant’s confidential information which information was to include but
not be limited to the second applicant’s trade secrets, business methods and
techniques and the identity of the second applicant’s customers or suppliers.
[8] The restraint was to operate for a period of three years from the
termination of his employment and was to apply throughout the whole of the
Republic.
[9] Although the first respondent does not identify whe n he first became
associated with the second respondent it appears from a company search that
he acquired a membership interest in the second respondent on 10 December
2025 and that he informed Mr Frank ie Dos Reis, an executive of the second
applicant, in November 2025 that he was working with the second
respondent.
[10] Notwithstanding this , the applicant s’ attorney wrote to the first
respondent on 6 February 2026. I n the letter they recorded that it had come
to the attention of the applicants th at in breach of the restraint, the first
respondent had become employed or was acting in association with the
second respondent. The letter also recorded that it had been brought to the
applicants’ attention that the first respondent was approaching the
applicants’ customers and employees in an attempt to elicit the ir business or
employment. The applicant s’ sought the first respondent’s written
confirmation that he would cease his association with the second respondent
and that he would hold himself to the confidentiality agreement.
[11] On 16 February 2026 the first respondent’s attorney replied on his
behalf. In that letter, and through his attorneys, he alleged that neither he nor
the second respondent had approached the applicants’ clients and employees
in an attempt to solicit their business or employment. He advised that he did
not possess any of the applicants’ confidential information but nevertheless
confirmed that he would not disseminate or distribute any such information
to any third party. He also undertook that, for the duration of the restraint, he
would not elicit or induce any of the applicants’ employees or existing
customers away from the applicants.
[12] The applicants accepted these undertakings and took no further step s
in the matter.
[13] On 2 April 2026 it came to the attention of Mr Robert Dale, the
second applicant’s national sales executive, and the deponent to the founding
and replying affidavits, that the second respondent sought to launch a
monitoring and response service as part of its business. He contended that as
the second respondent had never previously provided such a service it was
plain to see that the second respondent was “using Mr Goveia’s knowledge
and experience gained through his employment with Fidelity ADT as well as
Fidelity ADT’s proprietary information and know-how to springboard into a
new business which competes directly with Fidelity ADT”. (my emphasis)
[14] As a consequence of th is new development the applicants launched
this application to enforce the restraint.
[15] Contracts in restraint of trade are valid. Th eir enforcement however
may be contrary to public policy and unenforceable if when they are sought
to be enforced the enforcement thereof is unreasonable. 1 Whether the
enforcement of a restraint of trade agreement is reasonable is dependent, in
the first instance, upon whether the party wishing to enforce the restraint has
an interest that deserves protection.2
1 Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A) at 767E-I
2 Ibid at 767G-H
[16] Mindful of this requirement, Mr Dale in his founding affid avit set
out what M r Bos ch, who appeared for the first respondent, described as a
litany of protectable interests.
[17] Under the heading of “Protectable interest and Customer
Connections” Mr Dale contended that during the first respondent’s
employment with the second applicant he gained experience in and the
know-how of the second applicant’s business in some 22 listed categories.
[18] These categories included the first respondent’s knowledge and
understanding of branch management; people management skills;
knowledge and understanding of health and safety; proprietary information
relating to response and monitoring (without explaining what constituted
such proprietary information); profit margins; management of sales;
technical installation , technical servicing, sales and pricing structures and
knowledge of ongoing and maintained customer and industry connections.
[19] The protectable interests of an employer worthy of protection are
essentially of two kinds. The first kind consists of the relationships with
customers, potential customers, suppliers and others that go up to make what
is referred to as the "trade connection" of the business. The second kind
consists of c onfidential matter which is useful for the carrying on of the
business and which could be used by a competitor, if disclosed to him, to
gain a relative competitive advantage. Such information is often referred to
as "trade secrets".3
[20] In argument Mr. Lennox, who appeared for the applicants, submitted
that the first respondent’s knowledge of the second applicant ’s profit
3 Sibex Engineering Services (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk 1991 (2) SA 482 (T) at 502E-F
margins and customer connections was information which was worthy of
protection and justified the enforcement of the restraint.
[21] In his answering affidavit the first respondent pointed out that the
second applicant’s day -to-day operations are specific to its armed response
model which require firearm based patrols and a national fleet deployment,
centralised billing system s which are tied to its corporate structures and
large-scale subscriber management across thousands of clients.
[22] On the other hand he pointed out that the second applicant operates
under a different model. It does not have armed patrols and provides non-
lethal community oriented monitoring. It has transparent locally structured
pricing tailored to community schemes rather than national b illing systems
and has only two vehicles, compared to the second applicant’s thousands of
customers and large vehicle fleet with the result that their respective
operational efficiency and resource allocation are entirely different in scale
and application.
[23] Whilst it is so that the applicants profit margins are confidential to it
there is no evidence to suggest that the first respondent’s knowledge of the
profit margins generated by a company providing armed response security
throughout the Republic and which has thousands of clients , a fleet of
vehicles and many employees gives the second respondent a relative
competitive advantage vis-vis the applicants.
[24] In the absence of such evidence I am not satisfied that the first
respondent’s knowledge of the applicants profit margins is worthy of
protection.
[25] It is also so that the first respondent, whilst in the second applicant’s
employ, had access to the second applicants customer lists, which would
have included the second applicant’s customers in the Deep South.
[26] The first respondent’s evidence was that he was responsible for sales
managers in the south of the Western Cape Province. He had no direct
dealings with customers in the Deep South nor with any of the key role
players in that part of the Cape Peninsula during his employment at the
second applicant. His evidence was supported by two affidavits from
persons actively involved in community policing in the Deep South.
[27] In order to rely on a trade or customer connection as a protectable
interest the connection or relationship must be such that the former
employee has knowledge of an d influence over the customers o f his former
employer that would enable him to take advantage thereof.4
[28] There is no evidence to suggest that the second respondent had
personal knowledge or influence over the second applicant’s customers in
the Deep South to the extent that those customers would leave the second
applicant in order to obtain the services of an armed response comp any
which was associated with the first respondent.
[29] I should also add that until fairly recently the second respondent
provided repair services in respect of alarm systems which were tied to the
second applicants armed response services. This relationship has now ended.
It stands to reason that as a consequence of this relationship the second
respondent quite independently of the first respondent would have
4 Rawlins and another v Caravantruck (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 537 (AD)
knowledge of the identity of some, if not all, of the second applicants
customers in the Deep South.
[30] I agree with Mr Dale’s view that it is no coincidence that the first
respondent has ventured into the monitoring and response business until the
first respondent joined it. He is undoubtedly correct that the first
respondent’s knowledge and experience of this type of business gained by
him whilst employed by the second applicant and its predecessor is the
driver behind the second respondent’s expansion. The first respondent’s
knowledge and experience gained whilst in the seco nd applicant’s second
applicant’s employ however is not a protectable interest.5 It is part of his life
skills, and he cannot be interdicted from using them.
[31] I accordingly find that the applicants do not have a protectable
interest worthy of protection under the restraint and the application must fail.
[32] I should add that had I found that the applicants enjoyed a n interest
worthy of protection under the restraint I would not have restrained the first
respondent from carrying out the restricted activities for a period of three
years. There was no evidence from the applicants indicating the extent to
which the applicants businesses would be negatively impacted by the
competitive advantage obtained by the second respond ent in employing the
first respondent. Had I been called upon to enforce the restraint I would not
have enforced it for a period of longer than six months.
[33] I accordingly make the following order:
5 Highlands Park Football Club Ltd v Viljoen 1978 (3) SA 191(W) as but one authority for this proposition.
1. The application is heard as a matter of urgency.
2. The appl ication is dismissed with costs, such costs to include
the costs of counsel on scale C.
_____________________________
B J MANCA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For applicant: M.A. Lennox
Instructed by: Hinrichsen Attorneys
For first respondent: C.S. Bosch
Instructed by: Justine Del Monte and Associates