Heightsafety Training Academy (Pty) Ltd v Mose and Others

The applicant, Heightsafety Training Academy (Pty) Ltd, provides specialised training and supplies equipment in the height safety industry. The first respondent, Mr Bongani Ernest Mose, was employed as a training facilitator and was subject to a restraint of trade agreement prohibiting him from working for competitors for three years within specified areas after termination. After his dismissal on 10 December 2018, Mr Mose took up employment with the second respondent, a competitor, performing similar training work. The respondents conceded breach of the restraint. The applicant sought urgent enforcement of the restraint against the respondents, asserting protectable interests in its training methods, products, patents, and customer connections, and further alleged unlawful poaching of employees by competitors.

The application was treated as urgent. The first and second respondents were interdicted for 18 months from contacting or servicing the applicant’s former clients to whom the first respondent had provided training, and from providing the same training services to those clients. The first respondent was further interdicted for 18 months from supplying specified height safety gear to the applicant’s former customers. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the limits of enforceable restraints of trade in the labour context, particularly distinguishing between protectable proprietary interests and general skills acquired through employment. It also affirms that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction over delictual claims for unlawful interference with contracts, reinforcing jurisdictional boundaries under the BCEA. The judgment contributes to restraint-of-trade jurisprudence by emphasising proportional and narrowly tailored enforcement.