entitled to enforce it. Goldblatt J held that this clause in the sublicence governed the relationship between
Brazier and Universal and was inserted for the benefit of Brazier only. In addition, he held that there was no
evidence that, if the agreement were one for the benefit of Dexion, Dexion had accepted the benefit. I agree
with these findings. The position as between Dexion and Universal is similar to that between a landlord and a
subtenant. Without a term (express or tacit) to the contrary, the landlord cannot rely on the term of the sub
lease in order to evict the subtenant but has to rely on ownership. Apart from this, I even have some
reservations about Brazier's ability to rely on the provision because, absent any protectable interest, such as
copyright or confidential
View Parallel Citation
information, the clause may be no more than a bare covenant not to compete (Super Safes (Pty) Ltd and others
v Voulgarides and others 1975 (2) SA 783 (W) at 785DF).
[18] The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(Schutz, Scott, Cameron JJA and Heher AJA concurred in the judgment of Harms JA).
For the appellant:
LG Bowman SC and O Salmon instructed by Webber Wentzel Bowens, Johannesburg
Correspondents for the appellant:
Webbers, Bloemfontein
For the respondent:
N Davis instructed by Bowman Gilfillan Incorporated, Johannesburg
Correspondents for the respondent:
Israel & Sackstein, Bloemfontein
Footnotes
1 Also reported at 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC) Ed.