[1] The appellants/defendants appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge who had allowed a claim in essence for breach of confidential information not only against the 1st appellant who was the former Manager of the respondent/plaintiff but also against the 2nd and 3rd appellants who are partners of a business known as GPMR Trading.

[2] What is important to note in this case is that the learned trial judge has failed to make a distinction in relation to prayers related to breach of confidential information and prayers relating to restraint of trade. The prayers of the respondent does not identify the nature of the information which the respondent is seeking an injunction taking into consideration that it is an admitted fact that the GPMR Trading is a business which is trading similar products to that of the respondent. The prayers in fact, are oppressive in nature in particular of the 2nd and 3rd appellants, taking into consideration the pleadings, evidence and the law relating to restraint of trade which warrants the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's case at limine.

[3] The prayers in the statement of claim (which was repeated in the sealed order) read as follows:

"(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document