- Pieter Maritz challenged a 12-month restraint after leaving Truworths to join the Tyme Group.
- Truworths argued that he possessed valuable trade secrets and confidential credit analytics.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal said the restraint had become academic because the restriction period had essentially expired.
Pieter Maritz spent 10 years helping to build Truworths’ credit business before resigning to take up a senior role at the Tyme Group. His career move quickly turned into a legal battle over whether he could work for a company that Truworths viewed as a competitor.
When the case reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, the central question was no longer whether the restraint was fair, but whether the court could still rule on a dispute that was about to end.
Maritz’s rise at Truworths and move to Tyme
Maritz joined Truworths in 2015 and rose to become Executive for Risk and Analytics. He helped develop the retailer’s Pay 3 buy now, pay later product and worked with confidential customer data, credit models, and risk strategies.
After resigning in May 2025, he accepted a position with Tyme Pte Ltd. Truworths argued that his new role breached the 12-month restraint of trade because the Tyme Group competed in the same credit market.
Maritz denied this, saying Tyme Pte Ltd was his employer rather than TymeBank, and that the businesses served different markets. He also gave a written promise never to disclose Truworths’ confidential information.
Truworths fought to protect its trade secrets
The retailer told the court Maritz had access to proprietary scorecards, credit risk models, customer analytics, and strategic business processes developed over many years.
Truworths argued that this confidential knowledge was commercially valuable and justified enforcing the restraint to prevent it from benefiting a competitor.
Judge Norman says time changed everything
Judge T Norman said the appeal had become moot because the restraint was due to expire just two weeks after the hearing. “The purpose of the interdictory relief was rendered obsolete and ineffective.”
The court found there was no longer a live controversy that could produce a practical result. Judge Norman also rejected the suggestion that the case raised an important legal issue for the public. “The matter is not of public importance because the restraint is between the appellant and Truworths.”
LinkedIn post failed to help Truworths
Truworths also asked the court to consider new evidence based on a LinkedIn post published by Maritz’s attorneys, which referred to TymeBank as his employer.
Maritz said he did not write or approve the post and blamed it on an internal misunderstanding. Judge Norman refused to admit the evidence, saying it would only create new factual disputes rather than resolve the existing ones.
Confidentiality remains in force
Although the employment restraint had effectively run its course, the court made it clear that Maritz remains permanently bound by his duty not to disclose Truworths’ trade secrets and confidential information.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
