Dreadlocks salon wins case vs ex-staff

AN EAST London hair salon has succeeded in convincing the court that eight of its former employees have breached the restraint clause in their contracts.

How Do You Want It (Pty) Ltd, trading as Dreadlocks Studio One, turned to the East London High Court after director Luvo Sihlali filed papers accusing Thandile Matyumza, Ziyanda Matyumza, Zizipho Mgqolozana, Zama Mthethwa, Buhle Maphasa, Sphamandla Nkohla, Xolani Sihiya and a man identified only as Bhekinkosi, of poaching his clients.

Sihlali, who is trading under the same name in East London, Queenstown, Butterworth, King William’s Town and Mthatha, said his business was suffering as a result of the eight soliciting his clients.

The clause states that after leaving Dreadlocks Studio One, employees cannot be in the same industry for a period of two years in the province.

“The continued loss might render Dreadlocks Studio One’s business dysfunctional. The ripple effect of the [former employees’] actions will cause a labour unrest and will result in the business being behind on the stipulated timeframes set to meet its dues,” Sihlali said.

In answering court papers, Thandile Matyumza – allegedly on behalf of the aggrieved former employees – said they denied they ever bound themselves to the restraint of trade clause in question, but did not deny they signed the relevant service agreements.

“It is our contention that [the salon] terminated our contracts of employment, not the other way around. For this reason, the application ought to be dismissed with costs,” she said.

“East London alone is full of hair salons doing dreadlocks and all these buy their hair products from the supermarkets in town.

“[How Do You Want It] does not have a special product they can claim to be used solely and exclusively by his range of salons,” Matyumza said.

However, in his judgment, East London High Court judge Selby Mbenenge said the salon had satisfied the court. He said King William’s Town, Butterworth and Mthatha fall outside of the East London High Court’s area of jurisdiction, and therefore he could not rule on those hair salons.

“[The salon] has been successful in demonstrating it is possessed of legitimate interests which it seeks to protect,” Mbenenge said.

He restrained the eight employees from soliciting the custom of and dealing with or in any way transacting in competition to the applicant, any business, company, firm, undertaking, association or person which has been a client of the salon. He further ordered them to pay the costs of the application. —