Tabletpot Admin (Pty) Ltd v Jolliet and Another (2025/061274) [2025] ZAGPJHC 605 (17 June 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The applicant alleged the first respondent breached a confidentiality undertaking by potentially using or disclosing confidential information (e.g., client data, technical processes) to the second respondent, a direct competitor. The court evaluated the nature and extent of this alleged breach.
• The court examined whether the 12-month restraint period and 100km radius from Johannesburg were reasonable, particularly as the applicant operates in other provinces. It concluded the 300km original scope was unreasonable but upheld the 100km radius and duration.
• The court determined whether the applicant's restraint of trade provision, which prohibits the first respondent from working with a competitor for 12 months within a 100km radius of Johannesburg, is valid and enforceable. The court also assessed the reasonableness of the restraint's geographical and temporal scope.
• The court considered the applicant's claim that the application for an interdict was urgent due to the risk of the restraint period expiring before a final hearing, rendering the applicant without substantial redress. This included assessing the finality of the relief sought despite being framed as interim.

Holdings

• The court held that the first respondent breached the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings by joining a direct competitor (second respondent) after leaving the applicant's employment. The applicant demonstrated a clear right to enforce these terms, as the first respondent had access to confidential information including client data, technical methods, and business processes.
• The second respondent was ordered to cease aiding the first respondent's breaches and to stop using any of the applicant's confidential information. The court emphasized the duty to prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and protect client relationships.
• The restraint of trade was found unreasonable in its 300km radius extending beyond Gauteng, but the 12-month duration and 100km radius from Johannesburg were deemed enforceable. The court reduced the geographical scope to prevent unemployability while upholding the core protection period.
• The first respondent was directed to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-client scale. The court found the applicant's actions timely and justified the costs order as part of the final determination.

Remedies

• The first respondent is interdicted for 12 months after employment termination within a 100 km radius of Johannesburg from engaging in any business competing with the applicant, directly or indirectly, in any capacity (employee, director, consultant, etc.).
• The first respondent must treat and safeguard the applicant's confidential information as confidential and take all necessary steps to prevent it from being accessed by unauthorized third parties.
• The second respondent is ordered to cease aiding or abetting the first respondent in breaching contractual obligations and to stop utilizing any of the applicant's confidential information.
• The first respondent is ordered to comply with a perpetual obligation not to use, disclose, or divulge the applicant's confidential information (including client information, business affairs, marketing strategies, technical methods, computer programs, and operating methods) for their own benefit or any third party's, including the second respondent.
• The first respondent is directed to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.
• The first respondent is interdicted for 12 months after employment termination within a 100 km radius of Johannesburg from encouraging employees to leave the applicant, contacting clients to terminate their mandate, or offering competitive services.

Legal Principles

• The court assessed the reasonableness of the restraint of trade, reducing its geographical scope from 300km to 100km from Johannesburg to avoid rendering the respondent unemployable. This reflects the principle that restraints must not be unconscionable or overly restrictive.
• The court applied the principle that interim injunctive relief may be granted if the relief sought, though framed as interim, is effectively final in nature. This was based on the Stellenbosch Farmer's Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd case, which allows for a final interdict in urgent proceedings if the applicant demonstrates a clear right and potential harm.

Precedent Name

• Cape Tex Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd v SAB Lines (Pty) Ltd
• BHT Water Treatment (Pty) Ltd v Leslie & Another
• Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes & Another
• Valuenet Solutions Inc t/a Dinkum USA & Another v Etel Communications Solutions (Pty) Ltd
• Epic Outdoor Media Sales (Pty) Ltd v Paterson
• Stellenbosch Farmer's Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• [17] The applicant demonstrates a clear right in that the restraint of trade provision and the confidentiality undertaking are terms of the applicant's employment contract with the first respondent. Moreover, the first respondent is in breach thereof by virtue of his employment with the second respondent, a direct competitor of the applicant. Thus, the first respondent's employment with the second respondent amounts to a breach of the restraint provision.
• [47] The 300km radius from Johannesburg extends to cities and towns outside of the province of Gauteng, more especially given that the applicant has branches in Gqeberha, Durban and Bloemfontein. In the circumstances, the restraint of trade of 300km is unreasonable and stands to be reduced in its extent to the province of Gauteng.
• [21] The applicant alleges that the 300 km radius relates to the area in which the applicant operates and provides services to its clients and customers.