Abstract

Restraint of trade clauses remain a common feature of South African employment contracts. However, their practical enforcement has become increasingly complex. While the common law test for validity is settled, s 18 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 imposes stringent procedural safeguards that raise the threshold for interim enforcement. In DOT Office Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Badroonisha and Others [2025] ZALCJHB 329, the Labour Court highlighted how evidentiary burdens and constitutional considerations, particularly employee vulnerability, dignity, and access to work, can outweigh employer proprietary interests in urgent applications. The judgment illustrates that a valid restraint does not automatically justify immediate execution pending appeal. Exceptional circumstances and proof of irreparable harm must be shown. This case underscores the erosion of restraints’ practical utility, as courts recalibrate enforcement to protect vulnerable employees from disproportionate hardship. Ultimately, the law of restraints is evolving into a nuanced balancing mechanism, reconciling contractual sanctity with constitutional values of fairness and justice.