THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 2026-008002
In the matter between:
TFZ PROJECTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
FREDERIK G.J. KALSEN First Respondent
ESI SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 25 June 2026
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1] The applicant previously approached this Court on an urgent basis seeking to
enforce a restraint of trade agreement against the first respondent. On 18 March
2026, this Court dismissed that application.
[2] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order handed
down on 18 March 2026. Although the applicant’s written submissions were filed
(1) Reportable: No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
out of time on 23 June 2026, I am prepared, considering that the submissions
were served timeously, to overlook this non-compliance in the interests of justice
and determine the application on its merits.
[3] The applicant advances four grounds in support of its application for leave to
appeal. First, it submits that the Court erred both in fact and in law by regarding
the applicant’s characterisation as a labour broker as decisive of the question
whether it competed with the second respondent and, in turn, whether the
restraint agreement was enforceable. Secondly, the applicant contends that the
Court incorrectly concluded that it could not establish a protectable proprietary
interest because it was not itself engaged in the electrical services sector.
Thirdly, it argues that the Court erred in finding that no protectable proprietary
interest had been established in the form of customer relationships or trade
connections. Finally, the applicant challenges the punitive costs order granted
against it.
[4] The application is opposed by the first respondent. The first respondent had
timeously filed his written submissions.
[5] I have considered the submissions advanced by the applicant, the opposing
submissions filed by the first respondent, and reflected on the reasons and order
of the main judgment. Having done so, and applying the established test for
leave to appeal, I am not persuaded that there is a reasonable prospect that
another court would come to a different conclusion, n or am I satisfied that any
other compelling reason exists for the Labour Appeal Court to hear the matter .
The application therefore fails to meet the requisite threshold for leave to appeal
and must be dismissed.
[6] The first respondent seeks a costs order on the scale as between attorney and
own client. The considerations that informed the punitive costs order in the main
judgment remain applicable. These include the legal and factual flaws in the
judgment remain applicable. These include the legal and factual flaws in the
applicant’s case, the unsubstantiated allegations and both parties’ original stance
3
that a punitive costs order is warranted. In my view, the same censure is
warranted in respect of the present application.
[7] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as
between attorney and own client.
____________________
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa