The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban has ruled against the Umhlanga Rehabilitation Centre’s attempt to enforce a restraint of trade clause against a former employee, Bhavna Sewram.
The case stemmed from an application by the Umhlanga Rehabilitation Centre, a private physiotherapy practice operating in major hospitals in the Umhlanga area. The applicant sought to restrain Sewram from working in the same field for two years after her employment termination, a request that was ultimately dismissed by the court.
According to the details of the judgment, Sewram was employed for approximately eight months before resigning in September 2023. The agreement stipulating the restraint was poorly constructed, lacking specific terms that would justify the enforcement. The court found the clause in the employment agreement, labelled as the “restraint Clause”, to be vague, lacking substance, and failing to provide a clear definition of what interests were being protected.
In addressing the nature of the restraint, the court determined that a protectable interest had not been established. This was due to the ambiguous wording of the restraint clause, which merely stated a “2 year 8km restriction in event of termination/expiry of contract,” without detailing what such restrictions entailed or clarifying the circumstances under which they would apply.
The ruling stressed that the court could not speculate on terms missing from the contractual agreement, noting that it would be inappropriate to substitute reasonable expectations for the actual words agreed upon by the parties. The judgment referenced critical precedents in contract law, suggesting that clarity in drafting restraints is paramount, a responsibility that fell squarely on the applicant’s shoulders.
Moreover, the identified that the contract period sought was unnecessary since Sewram had not gained sufficient exposure to the clientele during her brief employment. The court pointed out that the applicant’s own statements highlighted that the proposed two-year period was meant to train a new employee and facilitate their integration into the practice, further undermining the argument that Sewram’s familiarity with clientele constituted any significant risk of harm to the Rehabilitation Centre’s business interests.
#Conviction
