- The High Court dismissed Fidelity’s urgent bid to enforce a three-year restraint of trade against Robin Richard Goveia.
- The judge found Fidelity had not proven any legitimate business interest to justify stopping Goveia from working in the security industry.
- The court held that knowledge and experience gained over years on the job are part of a person’s life skills and cannot be taken away by a restraint agreement.
A former senior sales executive at Fidelity Services Group has successfully fought off an urgent attempt to stop him from helping build a competing security company in Cape Town’s Deep South.
The case centred on Robin Richard Goveia, who spent years working at Fidelity in various security roles before resigning in September 2025 after serving his last 15 months as regional sales manager in the Western Cape.
A few months later, he joined Mach 1 Security CC, a well-established local operator in Fish Hoek and Simonstown. At that time, Mach 1 was expanding from guarding and alarm services into monitoring and response.
Fidelity urgently approached the High Court in the Western Cape, arguing that Mach 1’s move into monitoring and response was not a coincidence. They said it was driven by Goveia’s inside knowledge, experience, and confidential know-how gained during his time at Fidelity.
What Fidelity argued
Fidelity said that Goveia had signed a restraint agreement that barred him, for three years anywhere in South Africa, from joining or helping a competitor, soliciting Fidelity’s customers, or sharing confidential information.
The company relied on what Acting Judge BJ Manca called a long list of alleged protectable interests. Fidelity claimed that Goveia possessed valuable knowledge about its pricing, profit margins, technical servicing, sales systems, customer relationships, and operational know-how.
Fidelity also argued that Mach 1 was using Goveia’s knowledge as a springboard to enter a competing line of business.
Judge Manca said it was clear that the second respondent was using Goveia’s knowledge and experience, gained while working at Fidelity ADT, along with the company’s proprietary information and know-how, to help launch a business that directly competes with Fidelity ADT.
Court’s reasons for rejection
Judge Manca acknowledged that Fidelity’s profit margins were confidential but found no evidence that Goveia’s knowledge of those margins from a large national business gave Mach 1 any real competitive advantage in its very different, local operating model.
The judge also rejected Fidelity’s claim that Goveia had influence over customers in the Deep South. Evidence showed he had no direct dealings with customers there and no special influence to lure them away.
On that point, Judge Manca said, “There is no evidence that the first respondent had personal knowledge or influence over the second applicant’s customers in the Deep South enough to make them leave the second applicant.”
Most importantly, the court held that years of industry experience cannot be claimed by a former employer. Judge Manca said, “The first respondent’s knowledge and experience gained while working for the second applicant is not a protectable interest. It is part of his life skills, and he cannot be stopped from using them.” That finding struck at the heart of Fidelity’s case.
Court’s warning on overbroad restraints
The judgment also showed the court’s discomfort with long restraint periods that are not backed by real evidence. Judge Manca said that even if Fidelity had a protectable interest, he would not have enforced the restraint for the full three years they wanted.
He said if he had been asked to enforce the restraint, he would not have done it for more than six months.
In the end, the court dismissed Fidelity’s urgent application with costs, including counsel’s fees, and Goveia is now free to continue his work in the security sector.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
