Authored by Brian Denny and Alycia Pramlall.
A restraint of trade is a powerful protection for an employer, but the Labour Appeal Court has made an important point clear: the clock usually starts when employment ends, not when the court eventually gives judgment. In De Witt v Renew-It Truck Repair (Pty) Ltd, the court enforced the restraint, but corrected the Labour Court’s order so that the 12-month restraint period ran from 30 June 2025, the employee’s termination date.
The facts will feel familiar to many businesses. A sales executive at a heavy commercial vehicle repair business resigned. At her exit interview she said she was joining a scrap metal business and would not compete. She had already accepted a job with a direct competitor, and she started there on 1 July 2025, breaching her 24-month restraint. The employer discovered that she had emailed customer lists with contact persons and details from her work email to her personal email about a month before she resigned. Th employer applied urgently to enforce the restraint and the confidentiality undertakings.
The Labour Appeal Court did not dilute the basic South African rule on restraints. A restraint is enforceable unless the employee proves that enforcing it would be unreasonable and contrary to public policy. The employer must prove the contract and the breach. Once that is done, the employee must put up evidence to show why the restraint should not be enforced.
The case is important because it draws a line between enforcing a restraint and extending it. The employer asked for 12 months from the date of the court order, even though the restraint protected its interests after termination of employment. The Labour Appeal Court held that there was no evidentiary basis for making the restraint run from judgment. If an employer wants a restraint to operate for a different period, it must justify that relief on the papers.
This matters in practice. A restraint loses value quickly if the employer delays or if appeal proceedings don’t suspend the order. The court pointed out that the employer had a remedy under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 to ask that the order operate pending appeal. That procedural step can be decisive where every week of competition weakens the protection the employer bargained for.
The judgment is a reminder that sales staff are not “just salespeople”. Where a salesperson manages customer accounts, attends strategy meetings, builds customer relationships and has access to useful confidential information, a protectable interest may exist. Customer connections and confidential information remain two recognised forms of proprietary interest in restraint law.
For employers, the message is clear. Draft the restraint carefully, act quickly, preserve the evidence, and ask for relief that matches the legitimate interest being protected. For employees, the message is just as clear. A restraint is not a paper threat, and bare denials are unlikely to defeat it.
De Witt is therefore not an employer victory nor an employee victory in simple terms. It is a practical judgment about precision. That is exactly why restraint matters need early, focused legal advice.
De Witt v Renew-It Truck Repair (Pty) Ltd [2026] (LAC), 25 August 2026.