Van Huyssteen and Others v Pepkor Speciality (Pty) Ltd and Another

The appellants were the founder and senior management of the Tekkie Town footwear business. In 2016, the shareholders of Tekkie Town exchanged their shares for shares in Steinhoff under an exchange agreement, which required the appellants to enter into fixed-term employment contracts containing confidentiality and restraint of trade provisions lasting three years after termination. Tekkie Town later became part of the Pepkor group, and the appellants’ employment transferred under s 197 of the Labour Relations Act. After their termination and resignation in 2018, the appellants became involved in a competing business, Mr Tekkie. Pepkor entities sought an urgent interim interdict in the High Court to enforce the restraints pending an action for final relief. The High Court granted an interim interdict restraining the appellants from involvement in businesses selling footwear listed in an envisaged annexure A, referring to footwear stocked by Tekkie Town as at 1 October 2016, but no annexure was attached. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing that the absence of the annexure rendered the order meaningless and unjust.

The appeal was struck from the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is significant for clarifying the appealability of interim orders in South African law and reinforcing that the paramount consideration is the interests of justice. It confirms that an interim order will not be entertained on appeal merely because of alleged ambiguity if, properly interpreted in context, it is sufficiently clear. The judgment also underscores principles of interpreting court orders and the high threshold for civil contempt.