About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 629
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Viking Medical and Surgical (Pty) Ltd and Another v Weideman (114297/2026) [2026] ZAGPPHC 629 (10 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case
Number: 114297/2026
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO/
YES
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED:
YES
/NO
DATE
10/6/2026
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
VIKING
MEDICAL & SURGICAL (PTY)
LTD
First Applicant
VIKING
BCT (PTY)
LTD
Second Applicant
and
WEIDEMAN
NATASHA
Respondent
This judgment is
prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as such
and is handed down electronically by circulation
to the parties /
their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for handing
down is deemed to be
JUNE
2026.
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA
J
1.
The First Applicant is the Respondent’s former employer. The
Second Applicant, Viking BCT (Pty)
Ltd, was only incorporated on 1
July 2016, one day after the restraint was concluded.
2.
The Applicants seek urgent final interdictory relief which would, in
substance, compel the Respondent
to terminate or suspend her
employment with Terumo until 30 April 2026.
3.
The Respondent, Ms Natasha Weideman, opposes this application in its
entirety and requests that it be
dismissed with costs as will be
discussed below.
4.
The Respondent resigned from the First Applicant and is now employed
by Terumo. Terumo is a supplier
to the Applicants. Terumo also is a
major player and direct seller of medical equipment.
5.
Terumo and the Second Applicant have an EDA (Exclusive Distributor
Agreement). Terumo has indicated that
it will abide by the decision
of the court.
6.
It is common cause that the Respondent signed a written contract of
employment containing a restraint
of covenant. The restraint
prohibits the Respondent, for a period of 12 months following
termination of employment, from being
associated in any manner
whatsoever with any person, company or business entity operating in
the medical manufacturing, sale or
distribution field within the
Republic of South Africa. The Respondent occupied a position of a
senior management role as business
unit manager.
7.
In that position she had access to internal pricing, customer pricing
and discount floor pricing.
8.
It is argued on behalf of the Applicants that, the Respondent’s
employment by Terumo is a classic
case of Springboarding where a
departing employee using their former confidential information, trade
secrets, or client relationships
to quickly launch or advance a
competing business.
9.
Counsel for the Applicant argued further that particular emphasis
must be placed on the SANBS tender,
valued at approximately R650
Million over five years.
In
this tender, the Respondent was involved in the tender process and
has insight into pricing. She was also involved in variables,
negotiables discount ranges and internal margin tolerances.
According to the Applicant, this information is confidential and
commercially sensitive.
It
was contended by the Respondent that her role at Terumo is to
support Terumo’s distributor network in Southern Africa,
including Viking, and not to compete with Viking in the South
African market. According to the Respondent, no confidential
information has been identified by the Applicant.
The
Respondent further contended that Terumo is not presently a
competitor because of the Exclusive Distribution Agreement.
It
is trite law that the Applicant must prove the provisions of the
contract and the breach thereof. The Respondent must then
prove on a
preponderance of probabilities, that it will be unreasonable to
enforce the restraint
[1]
.
A
restraint of trade is unreasonable where it does not protect a
proprietary interest but suppresses competition or excludes an
employee from the market
[2]
.
In
Reddy v Siemens
[3]
paragraph 17
the following was said “
An
agreement in restraint of trade is concluded pursuant to ‘law
of general application’ referred to in s 36(1). What
is meant
by this expression includes the law in the general sense of the
legal system applicable to all which, in this case,
consists of the
corpus of law generally known as ‘the law of contract’
and which allows for contractual freedom and
the conclusion of
agreements pursuant thereto. The four questions identified in Basson
comprehend the considerations referred
to in s 36(1). A fifth
question, implied by question (c), which may be expressly added, viz
whether the restraint goes further
than necessary to protect the
interest, corresponds with s 36(1) requiring a consideration of less
restrictive measures to achieve
the purpose of the limitation. The
value Judgment required by Basson necessarily requires determining
whether the restraint or
limitation is ‘reasonable and
justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human
dignity, equality and freedom”.
It
is trite law that urgency is underpinned by absence of substantial
redress in due course. In the restraint of trade proceedings,
the
relief sought is to curb ongoing unlawful action which renders the
matter urgent
[4]
.
In
my view the Applicant had proven that the Respondent had access to
confidential information and there is reasonable possibility
that
the information could be used to the Applicant’s prejudice.
Moreover,
the Applicants acted quickly after learning of the Respondent’s
intended employment.
It
is further my view that, the Respondents are correct in holding the
Respondent to her contractual undertaking.
The
continuing breach by the Respondent constitute harm. The absence of
substantial redress in due course renders the matter urgent.
The
Applicants are justified to act with necessary haste to mitigate the
effects of the threat.
It
is further my view that there is no other appropriate remedy.
22.
I make the following order: -
22.1. The matter is
urgent.
22.2. The Respondent is
restrained from –
(a) breaching clause 36.4
(inclusive of sub-clauses) of the employment contract as well as
clause 7 of the specific restraint covenant
between the First
Applicant and the Respondent dated 30 June 2016.
(b) From continuing
employment with the Terumo BCT Europe N.V. up to the termination of
the restraint period on 30 April 2027.
22.3. costs against the
Respondent on Scale B.
D MAKHOBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Date
of Hearing
:
03
June 2026
Date
of Judgment
:
June 2026
For
the applicant
:
Adv
F.J. Labuschagne
Instructed
by
:
Adams
& Adams
For
the respondent
:
Adv
A.C. Diamond
Instructed
by
:
[1]
Magna
Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis
[1984] ZASCA 116
;
1984 (4) SA 874
(A) at
893-894.
[2]
Basson
v Chilwane and Others
[1993] ZASCA 61
;
1993 (3) SA 742
(A) at par 767 E-F, Reddy v
Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd
2007 (2) SA 486
(SCA) and
Vumatel (Pty) Ltd v Majra and Others
(2018) JOL 40494
(2C).
[3]
Id
Par 17.
[4]
East
Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagel Valley Granite
(Pty) Ltd and Others [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 (23 September 2011)
at Par
[8] and Mokgalakwena Municipality v Provincial Executive Council,
Limpopo and Others
2016 (4) SA 99
(GP) at Par 64.