Pretoria - Although the Protection from Harassment Act was enacted to protect citizens’ rights to privacy, dignity, freedom and security, the conduct complained of must result in some form of torment arising out of constant and ongoing interference or intimidation.
This is according to the High Court sitting in Pietermaritzburg, which overturned a protection order granted in favour of a woman, 23, against a relative.
The man against whom the order was granted, had turned to the court to appeal against the order, as he felt that the magistrate who issued it did not listen to his side of the story.
He said the magistrate simply ticked the boxes and granted the order without even reading the court papers.
The woman reported four incidents to the court, in which she claimed that an in-law related to her father had acted improperly towards her.
The magistrate last year interdicted the uncle from harassing the woman.
The complainant had said the uncle’s antics started nearly a decade ago, when she was 12. He and his family drove up from their home in Durban to visit her grandmother who was ill in hospital at the time.
At some stage during the day, she was on a sofa watching television by herself when the appellant came into the room and sat down next to her.
He then apparently touched her on her legs and inner thigh with his hand while asking her intimate questions.
She left the room and later returned but sat on a single chair so that he could not sit next to her again. He nonetheless sat on the arm of the chair. According to her, he placed his fingers in the gaps between the buttons on her shirt and touched her bra, and what the respondent described as her “chest area private parts”.
These events were reported the next day to the respondent’s aunt and uncle but nothing appears to have been done about the appellant’s conduct.
The second incident occurred seven years later when she was about 20. This time, while she bent over to hug her grandmother, who was seated in a chair, he slapped her on the buttocks.
The third incident was in 2021 at the appellant’s daughter’s wedding. She claimed he wanted to sit close to her at the table, but she refused.
The fourth incident took place a few months later during a family prayer meeting. During this occasion, she said, he grabbed her hand and touched her engagement ring on her left ring finger and began moving her ring up and down her finger.
This, she said, was the last straw and she applied for a protection order.
The uncle denied all these incidents and said the complaints against him lacked substance. He argued the magistrate should have probed the allegations instead of simply slapping him with an interdict.
Judge Robin Mossop said the first incident no doubt demonstrates oppressive and unacceptable conduct but happened before the Harassment Act came into force, thus the court could not have entertained this complaint.
“The second incident, likewise, involves unacceptable conduct: no man may touch a woman’s buttocks without her consent. But the third and fourth incidents cannot be classified as falling into that category,” the judge said.
While the court did believe the woman that these incidents did occur, it found the third and forth incidents were upsetting to her, but not so severe as to warrant an interdict.
The second incident – where he slapped her buttocks – was actionable, but the conduct complained of must result in some form of torment arising out of constant, ongoing interference or intimidation. This, however, was a once-off incident. The judge said there must be repetitive conduct or conduct that arises from a single act that is overwhelming in its oppressiveness. The court was not able to find that in the appelant’s alleged conduct.
Pretoria News