The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed an appeal by former Truworths executive Pieter Maritz against an enforcement of a restraint-of-trade agreement, ruling that the matter had become moot as the 12-month restraint period was effectively at an end.
In a judgment handed down on Tuesday, the SCA upheld a Western Cape High Court order that had enforced a restraint preventing Maritz from taking up employment with TymeBank or competing businesses for a year after leaving Truworths.
However, the appeal court declined to consider the substantive merits of the dispute, finding that any ruling would have no practical effect because the restraint period was due to expire on August 31 2026, just two weeks after the appeal was heard.
“The purpose of the interdictory relief was rendered obsolete and ineffective,” Judge of Appeal TV Norman said in the unanimous judgment.
Dispute rooted in executive departure
The case stemmed from Maritz’s departure from Truworths in 2025 after a decade with the retailer, where he rose from senior risk analyst to executive responsible for risk and analytics.
Truworths argued that Maritz possessed highly sensitive proprietary information relating to its credit business, including confidential risk-assessment models, customer analytics and the retailer’s profitable Pay 3 buy-now-pay-later product.
The retailer sought to block him from joining entities connected to TymeBank, which it viewed as a competitor in consumer credit and buy-now-pay-later services.
Maritz disputed that his new employer competed directly with Truworths and maintained that he was employed by Tyme PTY LTD rather than TymeBank.
Read more: Truworths names new chairman as sales come under pressure
Truworths UK division shows gains while the retailer’s African branch struggles
Confidentiality central to dispute
Maritz also argued that Truworths’ concerns about potential misuse of confidential information were speculative and had been addressed through undertakings he provided.
The dispute triggered urgent litigation in the Western Cape High Court, which granted a final interdict enforcing the restraint.
Subsequent proceedings partially suspended aspects of the order pending appeals, allowing Maritz to take up employment while preserving restrictions on disclosure of confidential information.
A significant feature of the SCA’s ruling was its emphasis on mootness.
Court declines to rule on merits
The second-highest court in the land noted that Maritz had already completed nearly a full year in his new role and that the restraint agreement was for a fixed 12-month period.
The judges found there was no broader legal issue of public importance warranting a determination on the merits despite the expiry of the restraint.
“The matter is not of public importance because the restraint is between the appellant and Truworths. It is based purely on their employment contract relationship,” the court said.
As a result, the court concluded that there was no basis for entertaining the appeal merely to provide guidance on the underlying legal questions.
Additional evidence rejected
The SCA also dismissed an application by Truworths to introduce additional evidence related to a LinkedIn post published by Maritz’s attorneys, which the retailer argued suggested TymeBank was funding the litigation and was Maritz’s true employer.
The court held that the proposed evidence would not resolve the core dispute and did not meet the threshold required for admitting further evidence on appeal.
While the court did not rule on whether TymeBank or Tyme Pte Ltd was Maritz’s true employer, it found that resolving the issue would involve factual disputes rather than a discrete legal question with wider implications.
The judges therefore saw no reason to engage with the issue in circumstances where the restraint period had effectively expired.
Confidentiality obligations remain
The court noted that the portion of the order preventing disclosure of Truworths’ trade secrets and confidential information operated indefinitely and had effectively been accepted by Maritz.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel who were employed.
Maritz was also ordered to pay the costs associated with Truworths’ unsuccessful application to admit further evidence.
Subscribe To Our Newsletter
