The Labour refused the interdict against a former employee but confirmed that he was prevented from dealing with Telkom concerning any retail business until 30 June 2016 and also from disclosing to his new employer, Internet Solutions (IS), any information relating to discussions with Telkom concerning the right to resell and bill Telkom services.  The former employee was also ordered to return all copies of the confidential affidavit and annexures forthwith. Although the relief sought by Vox was wide-ranging, it essentially sought an order that the former employee be interdicted and restrained from being employed by IS (or its holding company or a subsidiary company) until 30 June 2016 throughout the RSA.  Vox tendered to pay the former employee his monthly remuneration for that period or for such shorter period that he is unemployed.

Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Steyn (Internet solutions) (J1149/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 278 (4 September 2015) per Myburgh AJ.

[34]   Although restraints of trade typically afford protection against employees joining competitors, . . .  there exists no reason why a supplier restraint should not be recognised.  The rationale for enforcing restraints depends first and foremost on the protection to the business afforded by the restraint, rather than focussing necessarily on whom the protection operates against.  Thus, there can be restraints against poaching employees rather than only against soliciting customers, and either of those two can be enforced against someone who is nonetheless permitted to take up employment with a competitor.  Similarly, a restraint against disclosure of confidential information is not confined to disclosure to a competitor, but must operate to protect against disclosure to any party which can utilise that knowledge to the prejudice of the goodwill of the business in favour of which the restraint has been obtained.