Whatshot

2026
2025
November
2024
June
April
2023
March
2022
2021
2020
March
February
2019
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
2018
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
2017
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2014
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2013
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2012
December
November
October
September
August
July

Legal Talk

Legal Talk

Author: Fawzia Khan
Date: 2016-05-06
One of the major frustrations a litigant faces has to be the length of time it takes before a matter goes to court. These delays cause many litigants to become highly frustrated at the slow pace in which the wheels of justice turn. One of the reasons for the delay is due to the specific time lines, which are laid down in our rules of court. This means that you cannot for example launch an interdict, or issue out a summons and expect that the matter will be ventilated at court within a short time thereafter. However the more compelling reason for delays has to be the backlog, which our courts have to deal with, due primarily to the sheer volume of disputes. This, coupled with the infrastructure in place, in that there are only so many presiding officers and courtrooms, which are available to hear a dispute, means that it's not uncommon for say a judge in the high court to preside over a matter, many months if not years, after legal proceedings commenced. What happens if an employer goes to court to enforce an employment contract which had a six month "restraint of trade", and "confidentiality clause" against an ex employee, but by the time the matter gets to court the restraint period had expired? This is what happened when Adidas obtained an interdict against Puma, after an employee left Adidas and took up employment with Puma. The restraint prohibited the employee from working in the sporting goods industry for a period of six months after the termination of his employment. The court found that there was no need for such an interdict on the basis that the six-month restraint had long since expired. Adidas nevertheless insisted on appealing this decision. In terms of our appeal law, if a matter has no practical relevance, [as in this case where the period had expired], the court could dismiss an appeal, unless there was found to be "exceptional circumstances" or that the legal issue was of public importance, which would affect matters in the future. In this case, the court found neither of these factors evident and dismissed the appeal. Know your rights! The Law Desk of Fawzia Khan & Associates. Giving You the Power of Attorney! Email fawzia@thelawdesk.co.za or call 031-5025670 for any legal assistance at competitive rates.