Last year, South African edtech startup HyperionDev was busy stacking its war chest, announcing R95 million ($5 million) in funding to bring its total growth investment to a hefty R595 million ($31.1 million). With backing from 23 different funders, the company, which provides online “bootcamps” for tech skills, has its sights set on expanding its operations in South Africa and the UK.
But as any scaling startup knows, rapid growth often comes with growing pains — chief among them, ensuring that senior employees who leave don’t take the “secret sauce” with them. HyperionDev just gave a masterclass in protecting its recipe, successfully enforcing a 12-month restraint of trade agreement against a former high-level manager.
The judgment, delivered on May 23, 2025, sees the ex-employee, Sinishen Govender, benched for a full year, not from his last day of work, but from the date of the court order.
The Post-Exit Adventure
Mr. Govender wasn’t a junior coder. He was Hyperion’s Head of Admissions, Collections, and Student Success, a senior post he held from June 2021 until his resignation in April 2024. According to the court, his role gave him access to the keys to the kingdom: confidential “strategy blueprints,” data from monthly “syncs,” intimate knowledge of student leads, pricing models, and strategic planning.
Shortly after his employment terminated, Govender popped up on LinkedIn as the “Co-Founder and Chief Operations Officer” of a new entity called “Project Y.” His profile boasted he was a “renowned ed tech celebrated for his transformative impact.”
HyperionDev, naturally, was less than celebrated. It argued that Project Y was a direct competitor and that Govender was in clear breach of the 12-month non-compete he signed when he joined.
Govender’s defence was a classic of the “it’s not what it looks like” genre:
- It’s Not a Competitor: He argued Project Y’s business model was totally different. While Hyperion sells bootcamps, Project Y is a “membership platform” for disadvantaged youth, funding them to attend courses (often via income-share agreements) provided by other companies.
- It’s Not a Real Job: He claimed he was merely offering services pro bono.
- It’s Not a Real Title: The “Co-Founder and COO” title? Just an “honorarium.”
- It’s Not the Same Work: He said his role was limited to “soft coaching… and building soft skills such as business professional English,” not the high-level strategy he did at Hyperion.
The Court Was Not Amused
The High Court of South Africa systematically dismantled these arguments.
On the question of whether Project Y was a “competitor,” the judge found the “different business model” argument to be a distinction without a difference. The court noted that both companies “scramble for the same clientele” and “vie for the same goal,” even if one provides the education and the other funds it.
As for the pro bono work and the “honorarium” title, the court found them irrelevant. Citing established case law, the judge pointed out that the entire purpose of a restraint agreement is to protect the employer from the potential for harm. The ex-employer doesn’t have to prove the employee is actually sharing secrets; it just has to prove they could.
In the court’s pointed words, quoting a previous case: “It does not lie in the mouth of the ex-employee… to say to the ex-employer, ‘Trust me, I will not breach the restraint further…’”
The saga even included a peculiar email exchange. Project Y’s founder, Felix Anthonj, had emailed Hyperion’s CEO, Riaz Moola, in May 2023, asking for “feedback on my new venture idea” and to “pre-select potential vendors,” stating he had “no intention to build any of the education services myself.” Moola initially declined the meeting.
After the legal battle began, Moola curiously emailed Anthonj again, saying, “I am now more open,” and mentioning Hyperion had “recently raised R100 million to fund free courses for unemployed SA youth” — a project Govender claimed was a “surreptitious attempt to create competition” that never existed during his tenure.
The judge effectively rolled their eyes at this sideshow, calling the entire email chain a “red herring” that didn’t change the facts: the two companies were in the same game.
A Tale of Two Restraints: Why Hyperion Won
HyperionDev’s victory against the ‘pro-bono founder‘ is particularly stark when compared to other restraint of trade battles in Africa, where employers often fail.
A recent Nigerian case, for instance, shows the other side of the coin. An employer sued a former employee for breaching a Non-Disclosure Agreement (ENDA). The court sided squarely with the employee.
The employer’s case fell apart for two key reasons:
- Unfair Labour Practice: The company had the employee sign the ENDA two months after he had already relocated from the UK and started the job, putting him in an unequal bargaining position.
- Failure of Proof: The employer couldn’t actually prove what trade secrets were stolen or which clients were solicited. The claims were vague.
The lesson is clear. Hyperion won because its restraint was part of the original employment contract, and it could point to specific, tangible proprietary information (the “strategy blueprints” and “sync” data) that Govender had access to. The Nigerian company lost because its contract was an afterthought and its claims were abstract.
For HyperionDev, the victory solidifies its $31.1 million-backed market position. For Mr. Govender, it’s a 12-month, court-ordered stint of gardening leave, effective immediately. And for startup execs everywhere, it’s a reminder to read the fine print — and be very careful what “honorariums” you accept.