- The Western Cape High Court ordered a restraint of trade against veterinarian Reinhardt Venter to take immediate effect despite pending appeal proceedings.
- The court found that Venter’s relationships with large animal clients and access to confidential business information justified immediate enforcement.
- Judge Van Zyl held that delaying the restraint could leave Mossel Bay Animal Hospital without meaningful relief.
A Mossel Bay veterinarian’s close ties with large animal clients and confidential knowledge of practice operations were pivotal in the decision to enforce a restraint of trade order without delay, even while the matter is on appeal.
On 11 June 2026, the High Court in the Western Cape found that delaying enforcement could leave his former employer without any meaningful relief.
The dispute involves Mossel Bay Animal Hospital and its partners, Bennett Stander and Pieter Jacobus de Wet, who obtained a restraint of trade order against former employee Reinhardt Venter.
The order prohibits Venter from practising as a veterinarian in relation to large animals within a 60km radius of the practice for one year from 10 April 2026.
After the restraint order was granted, Venter filed an application for leave to appeal. In terms of the ordinary rules, that application suspended the operation of the order.
Mossel Bay Animal Hospital then approached the court seeking an order under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act to enforce the restraint immediately while the appeal process continues.
Background to the dispute
Venter was employed by Mossel Bay Animal Hospital from December 2020 and worked extensively with the practice’s large animal clients. The hospital’s large animal division serves approximately 142 farms in the Mossel Bay area.
The applicants alleged that during his employment, Venter became familiar with client details, veterinary requirements and pricing information. They also alleged that he developed relationships with farmers and their staff through his work for the practice.
The court heard that Venter operated the large animal side of the practice through his personal cellphone rather than a dedicated practice number. The applicants further alleged that he created a WhatsApp group known as “Mosselbaai Kudde Gesondheid” which included at least 91 of the practice’s large animal clients.
Venter was dismissed on 10 April 2026. Shortly afterwards, the applicants launched urgent proceedings to enforce the restraint of trade agreement contained in his employment contract. The court granted the restraint order on 29 April 2026.
Appeal delays become central issue
Judge PS Van Zyl found that the central issue before the court was not whether the restraint order had been correctly granted, but whether it should remain suspended while appeal proceedings unfold.
The judge noted that the restraint only runs until April 2027. Even if the application for leave to appeal is unsuccessful, Venter would still be entitled to pursue further remedies through higher courts. As a result, much of the restraint period could expire before the litigation reaches its end.
Judge Van Zyl remarked, “If the first applicant is ultimately successful in the appeal process initiated by the respondent, it will be left with no relief.”
The court accepted that this created exceptional circumstances because the very purpose of the restraint could be defeated through the passage of time.
Referring to previous decisions dealing with restraint of trade disputes, Judge Van Zyl quoted authority holding that “the forfeiture of substantive relief because of procedural delays, even if not protracted in bad faith by a litigant, ought to be sufficient to cross the threshold of ‘exceptional circumstances’.”
Court finds irreparable harm
The court also considered whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the restraint remained suspended.
Judge Van Zyl found that the applicants had established a real risk that their customer relationships and business interests could be undermined while appeal proceedings continue. The judge noted that damages would be difficult to quantify where customer connections and confidential business information are involved.
The court was not persuaded that Venter would suffer comparable prejudice if the restraint was enforced immediately. Importantly, the restraint only applies to work involving large animals within the specified area. Venter remains free to work with small animals and may continue to undertake large animal work outside the restricted radius.
The judgment records that Venter is currently employed as a locum veterinarian at Dana Bay Veterinary Clinic. Judge Van Zyl concluded, “The first applicant has, on the facts, established on a balance of probabilities that it will suffer irreparable harm, and that the respondent will not suffer a similar fate.”
Restraint takes immediate effect
The court ultimately ordered that the restraint of trade be put into immediate operation pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal and any subsequent appeals.
Venter was also ordered to pay the costs of the application, including counsel’s fees.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
