Magna Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Rabie HR, Kotzé AR, Joubert AR, Trengove AR en Van Heerden AR
• Judgment Date: 27 September 1984
• Hearing Date: 14 May 1984
• Court: Appellate Division

Rabie HR:

Die geding waaruit hierdie appèl voortvloei, het op 7 November 1977 begin toe die respondent, Adolf Christiaan Ellis, in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling 'n aksie teen die appellant ingestel het waarin hy beweer het dat hy gedurende die tydperk September 1975 tot 15 Januarie 1977 ingevolge 'n C mondelinge ooreenkoms goedere (hoofsaaklik sweisapparaat) van die appellant verkoop het en dat die appellant hom nog nie al die kommissie betaal het wat hy met die verkoop van dié goedere verdien het nie. Hy het gevolglik 'n staat van die kommissie wat hy verdien het, die debattering van daardie staat en betaling van die bedrag wat aan hom verskuldig mag blyk te wees, geëis. Die appellant het in sy verweerskrif beweer dat hy D R35,15 aan die respondent verskuldig was maar dat hy, vanweë sy teeneis (besonderhede waarvan hieronder weergegee word) nie verplig was om hierdie bedrag aan die respondent te betaal nie. By die voor-verhoor-samespreking tussen die partye het die respondent aanvaar dat hy op slegs R35,17, tesame met koste op E die toepaslike landdroshofskaal, geregtig was, en daar is toe ooreengekom dat betaling van hierdie bedrag en die koste onderworpe aan die Verhoorhof se beslissing oor die appellant se teeneis sou wees, en dat die Verhoorhof net oor die teeneis sou beslis.

Die Verhoorhof (HUMAN R) het die appellant se teeneis afgewys en die appellant gelas om die respondent se koste, insluitende F die koste van twee advokate en koste tussen prokureur en kliënt, te betaal. Die appellant appelleer nou teen die geheel van die Verhoorhof se bevel.

Die besonderhede van appellant se teeneis lui soos volg:

"3 (a)

On 17 November 1975, the parties entered into a written agreement to which were G annexed two annexures, marked annexure 'A' and annexure 'B'.

(b)

On 24 January 1976, the aforementioned annexures to the said agreement were substituted and replaced by revised annexures, also marked annexure 'A' and annexure 'B'.

(c)

A copy of the said written agreement and the annexures thereto are annexed to the H defendant's plea herein marked annexures 'PA', 'PB', 'PC', 'PD' and 'PE'.

(d)

In terms of clauses 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the agreement, annexure 'PA', the plaintiff undertook that for a period of two years following the termination of the agreement for any cause, and within a radius of 10 kilometres of the perimeter of the I geographical area defined in annexure 'PE', he would not:

(i)

directly or indirectly either as a partner, employee, agent, salesman, or representative enter into or engage in any business in competition with the defendant;

(ii)

sell any other thing, substance, or material, the function, use or purpose of which is similar to or the same as the

Rabie HR

function, use or purpose of the A products defined in annexure 'PD';

(iii)

seek or solicit customers or business for the sale of such said thing, substance or material within the area mentioned above;

(iv)

promote or assist financially or otherwise any person, firm, association or corporation engaged B in a business which competes with the defendant's business.

(e)

In terms of clause 6 (d) of the agreement, annexure 'PA', it was agreed and acknowledged that:

(i)

in the event of breach of the terms of the provisions of the agreement by the plaintiff, the C defendant would suffer damages at the rate of R250 per week for the period during which the plaintiff was in violation of the provisions of clauses 6 (b) and 6 (c)

(ii)

such sum would constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the damages which would be suffered by D the defendant as a result of plaintiff's breach of the aforegoing provisions.

4.

On or about 1 February 1977, within a period of two years following the termination of his services with the defendant and within a radius of 10 kilometres of the perimeter of the geographical area defined in annexure 'PE', the plaintiff entered into and has E continued being employed by a firm or company, viz Welding Advisory Services, whose business is in competition with that of the defendant and has in the course of such employment contravened the provisions of clause 6 (b) and the provisions of one or more of the subclauses of clause 6 (c).

5.

In the premises, the plaintiff has become indebted to the defendant in a sum of R18 000, being R250 per week F from 1 February 1977 to date, viz 17 June 1978.

6.

Furthermore, in the premises, the defendant is entitled:

(a)

to an interdict restraining the plaintiff from continuing in breach of the agreement between the parties;

(b)

to payment of such further amount of damages G as will be due for the period 18 June 1978 to date of judgment. Wherefore the defendant prays for judgment against the plaintiff for:

(a)

payment of the sum of R18 000;

(b)

payment of such additional sum of damages calculated at the rate of R250 per week from 18 June 1978 to H date of judgment;

(c)

an order restraining the plaintiff from continuing in breach of the agreement between the parties;

(d)

alternative relief;

(e)

costs of suit."

I Die goedere van die appellant waarna daar in klousule 6 van die ooreenkoms verwys word, word soos volg in aanhangsel "PD" by die ooreenkoms omskrywe:

"All of the products listed in the sales catalogue of the company, subject to any future additions or deletions of products by the company, which sales catalogues are made a part hereof..."

Die gebied waarop die ooreenkoms tussen die partye betrekking

Rabie Hr"Magna Area 225" Genoem en Dit Word Soos Volg Omskryf

"Starting where the road from Sasolburg to Vanderbijlpark crosses the Vaal River, travel north to the right hand turn-off to Vereeniging via Kleigrond. Proceed along Houtkop Road to Senator Road to Ring Road. Continue straight across the Klipriver to Ring Road to the Suikerbosrand River. West along this river to the Vaal River. Along the Vaal to the Lewis Road Bridge. Then south past Viljoensdrif Siding to Coalbrook B Siding, then west and north to Sasolburg and the starting point.

This area to include all accounts within the municipal area of Meyerton and Sasolburg - together with its associated coal mines. It also includes the accounts of Vereeniging Refractories, Klip Power Station, Kragbron and Vereeniging Hospital.

Travelling in the direction of this description you are authorised to call on all accounts to the right of the Road C River, the centre of the road being the dividing line at all times."

Uit die getuienis blyk dit dat "Magna Area 225" 'n geïndustrialiseerde gebied is en dat dit binne die sogenaamde "Vaal Driehoek" val.

In antwoord op 'n versoek om nadere besonderhede oor die bewering in para 4 van die teeneis dat Welding Advisory Services 'n mededinger van die appellant is, het die appellant gesê:

D "Welding Advisory Services competes with the defendant in the business of supplying and distributing of specialized electrodes, brazing alloys, silver solders and powders."

Dit was gemene saak tussen die partye dat die appellant en Welding Advisory Services albei artikels van die bogemelde aard verkoop het.

E In sy pleit op para 3 van die teeneis het die respondent die bestaan van die ooreenkoms waarop die appellant hom beroep, erken. Hy het egter ontken dat klousule 6 van die ooreenkoms geldig of afdwingbaar ("valid or enforceable") was -

"in that it seeks to impose an unreasonable restraint on the plaintiff in carrying on his trade or business".

F Wat para 4 van die teeneis betref, het die respondent al die bewerings daarin tot aan die einde van die woorde "... that of the defendant" erken. Hy het ook erken dat hy die bepalings van klousule 6 (b) van die ooreenkoms verbreek het op die wyse deur die appellant beweer. Hy het paras 5 en 6 van die teeneis ontken, en sy bede was dat die Hof klousule 6 van die G ooreenkoms ongeldig moet verklaar en die appellant se eis met koste moet afwys.

Die appellant het die respondent in 'n versoek om nadere besonderhede gevra om te sê op welke gronde, en in welke opsigte, hy beweer dat klousule 6 van die ooreenkoms onredelik en onafdwingbaar is. Die respondent het soos volg geantwoord:

H "The clause is a covenant in restraint of trade in that it purports to restrict the common law right of the plaintiff to trade or work and the defendant seeks, pursuant to this clause, an order which has the effect of interdicting the plaintiff from continuing with his present work. The agreement being, by virtue of the above facts, a covenant in restraint of trade, is prima facie void and I unenforceable. The onus is upon the defendant to satisfy the Court that the restraint is reasonable. The plaintiff contends that the entire clause is unreasonable and unenforceable. The onus being on the defendant to prove that the prima facie void clause is reasonable and therefore enforceable, the defendant is not entitled to any further particularity."

In die appellant se teeneis word daar na sekere klousules van die

Rabie HR

ooreenkoms tussen die partye verwys. Paragraaf 3 (d) van die A teeneis bevat 'n samevatting van die inhoud van klousules 6 (b) en 6 (c) van die ooreenkoms, en para 3 (e) 'n samevatting van klousule 6 (d), en dit is nie nodig om die klousules self aan te haal nie. Ek wil egter op enkele verdere bepalings van die ooreenkoms wys:

(i)

Klousule 1: Hierin word bepaal dat die appellant aan die respondent die alleenreg ("exclusive right") verleen -

B "to act as agent for it in respect of the sale of those products listed in annexure 'A' hereto, to purchasers, hereinafter referred to as 'customers', who carry on business within the geographical area being and contained within the boundaries set out in annexure 'B' hereto".

(ii)

Klousule 2 (a): Hierin word gesê dat die appellant C onderneem om artikels wat bestel word, te voorsien, maar met die...