Legal Info

GNG Pine Products CC and Another v De Beer and Another (2026/084033) [2026] ZALCJHB 205 (10 July 2026) Restraint of trade – urgency – principles considered – applicant satisfying requirements of urgency under Rule 38 – provisions of Rule 39 considered – Rule 39 prescribes process to be followed to enforce restraints of trade – applicant complying with such processes – application to be heard as one of urgency
Restraint of trade – principles stated – application of principles to matter – issue of protectable interest and infringement of such interest considered – protectable interest in the form of trade connections and confidential information considered – protectable interest shown in both respects
Restraint of trade – breach of restraint – employee actually involved in establishing of competitor – employee associated with competitor and using confidential information and trade connections to establish competing business – employer entitled to mitigate risk caused by such breach – confidential information and trade connections held by employee unreasonable risk if associated with competitor – infringement of protectable interest shown
Restraint of trade – conducting of weigh off – factors considered – restraint area not commensurate to employee’s sphere of influence – restraint area reduced –restraint period – period unreasonably long – period reduced – overall considered and subject to moderation weigh off favouring employer br>Interdict – requirements of interdict satisfied – interdict granted – restraint enforced
Costs – principles considered – costs awarded

Vanhattan Lifting CC v Herselman and Another (2026/106176) [2026] ZALCJHB 206 (7 July 2026)
Restraint of trade – urgency – principles considered – provisions of Rule 39 considered – Rule 39 prescribes process to be followed to enforce restraints of trade – process has compulsory time periods – requirements of urgency satisfied – matter heard as urgent application
Restraint of trade – principles stated – application of principles to matter – issue of protectable interest and infringement of such interest considered – protectable interest in the form of trade connections and confidential information considered – protectable interest shown
Restraint of trade – breach of restraint – employment with direct competitor constitutes breach – employer entitled to mitigate risk caused by such breach – confidential information and trade connections held by employee unreasonable risk if associated with competitor – infringement of protectable interest shown
Restraint of trade – conducting of weigh off – factors considered – restraint area reasonably determined – restraint period – period unreasonably long – period reduced – overall weigh off favouring employer
Interdict – requirements of interdict satisfied – interdict granted – restraint enforced
Costs – principles considered – costs awarded

Fry v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C452/23) [2026] ZALCCT 108 (9 July 2026)
An application to review and set aside an award dismissing a constructive dismissal claim. The employee contends that the finding that she was not constructively dismissed is incorrect and liable to be set aside, and that it should be replaced with an order that she was constructively dismissed, that the dismissal was unfair, and that compensation be awarded. The employee failed to make out a case that her continued employment was rendered intolerable.

Full Circle Contact Centre Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Capita South Africa v Williamson and Others (C440/2023) [2026] ZALCCT 109 (14 July 2026)
Section 145 of the LRA – Review application of an arbitration award where the Commissioner found that the employee’s admittedly racially discriminatory conduct, amounted to nothing more than insensitive conduct which did not warrant dismissal. The Commissioner ignored this country’s past and the fundamental principles expressed by the Constitutional Court in respect of racial discrimination in the workplace. The Commissioner misconstrued the nature of the enquiry and arrived at an unreasonable outcome. The review application is successful and the arbitration award set side.

Alpheus Mogase Molopo v S (1115/2024) [2026] ZASCA 100 (13 July 2026)
CRIMINAL – Evidence – Identity – Accused convicted of housebreaking, robbery and murder based on eyewitness identification – Two witnesses observed him at close range in well lit room for 15–20 minutes, face uncovered – Defence raised alibi, argued dock identification unreliable without parade – Court applied cautionary approach in S v Mthetwa, held identification evidence consistent, corroborative and reliable – Alibi rejected as not reasonably possibly true – State proved identity beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal dismissed.

QI Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for SARS (180/2025) [2026] ZASCA 96 (3 July 2026)
Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 – statutory obligations of clearing agents appointed under s 64B – proof required to acquit goods entered for removal in bond or in transit – Commissioner’s assessment of proof of export – liability for duties and levies – separate discretion under s 88(2) to demand an amount in lieu of forfeiture – distinction between procedural rationality and procedural fairness – review under the principle of legality and s 6(2)(f)(ii) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 – remittal to the Commissioner.