Sobralia Beleggings (Pty) Ltd t/a ACDC Express Port Elizabeth and Another v Human and Another

The first applicant operates an electrical goods business. The first respondent was employed as a Key Account Associate and signed an employment contract containing confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses prohibiting him, for 12 months post-termination, from working for competitors within a 100 km radius and from soliciting the applicants’ customers or using confidential information. He resigned on 6 August 2024 and his employment ended on 30 August 2024. He thereafter took up employment with the second respondent, a competitor located approximately 5.5 km away. The applicants launched an urgent application to enforce the restraint and confidentiality provisions, alleging risk to customer connections and misuse of confidential information. The first respondent opposed the application, disputing urgency and denying that he had customer connections or access to protectable confidential information capable of harming the applicants.

The application was dismissed with costs on scale B.

The judgment reinforces that restraints of trade are enforceable only where an employer proves a factual, protectable interest, particularly customer connections capable of exploitation. It emphasises that generic allegations of access to confidential information or customer lists are insufficient. The case also underscores that urgency in restraint matters is not automatic and may be undermined by delay, providing guidance on the proper application of Rule 6(12).