Mayongo v Preyer (EC03/24) [2025] ZAEQC 9 (9 December 2025)

Case Note

Mayongo v Preyer
EC 03/24
09 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding hate speech and harassment within the healthcare sector, as defined under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA). It addresses the intersection of patient rights and staff dignity, establishing important legal precedents on the protection against racial discrimination and verbal abuse in medical environments. The judgment also includes an analysis of what constitutes acceptable language and conduct in healthcare settings, making it an instructive case for future similar matters.

Cases Cited

• South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another (2022) 2 SA 1 (CC)
• Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust and Others (2023) 4 SA 1 (SCA)
• Stevens v S [2005] 1 All SA 1 (SCA)
• S v Deppe & Douman (512/2012) [2013] ZASCA (7 March 2013)
• Makhale & Another v S (438/20) [2022] ZASCA 19; 2022 (1) SACR 485 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act No. 4 of 2000)
• Section 10(1) - Prohibition of hate speech
• Section 11 - Prohibition of harassment

Rules of Court Cited

• None explicitly referenced in the judgment

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment involves a complaint of racial discrimination and hate speech by the applicant, Agreement Funeka Mayongo, against the respondent, Mark Preyer, under the PEPUDA. The court found that Preyer had engaged in hate speech by using derogatory terms, including "kaffir," aimed at Mayongo, as well as harassment through vulgar language. The court ordered Preyer to pay Mayongo's costs and set a date for further determination of appropriate remedies, indicating the gravity of the offenses.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed by the court include: 1. The classification of Preyer’s language as hate speech under PEPUDA. 2. The applicability of harassment definitions in a medical context. 3. The legal obligations of healthcare providers concerning staff safety and dignity.

Held

The court held that Preyer's language constituted hate speech and harassment. Specifically, the use of the term "kaffir" was found to be derogatory and prejudiced, aligning with the definition of hate speech under section 10(1) of PEPUDA. Additionally, the obscene terms directed at Mayongo were deemed to constitute harassment under section 11 of the Act. Costs were awarded against Preyer.

THE FACTS

On 19 February 2024, Mark Preyer presented as a patient at Mediclinic Cape Town, where Agreement Funeka Mayongo was the triage nurse on duty. During the assessment process, Preyer used aggressive and abusive language towards Mayongo, including racial slurs and obscenities. The incident occurred in a private triage area, devoid of audio evidence due to privacy regulations. Eyewitness accounts from hospital staff corroborated Mayongo's version of events, noting her visible distress and the aggressive nature of Preyer's remarks.

Preyer claimed to have sustained an injury while riding his motorcycle and sought immediate attention. His conduct, however, suggested an attitude of entitlement and arrogance, leading him to engage in hostile behavior when asked to wait for treatment. Nurses and hospital staff attempted to manage the situation, but Preyer escalated the confrontation, leading to incidents of verbal abuse against both Mayongo and Dr. Thomas, the head of the emergency unit.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions before the court were whether Preyer's statements constituted hate speech and harassment as defined under PEPUDA, and whether he had infringed upon Mayongo’s rights as a healthcare worker. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate remedies considering the violations established during the proceedings.

ANALYSIS

The court commenced its analysis by examining the definitions of hate speech and harassment within the framework of PEPUDA. The use of the term "kaffir" was deemed clearly derogatory and aimed to incite harm or propagate hatred, aligning with the standards set forth by previous case law. The court referenced the test established in South African Human Rights Commission v Masuku to ascertain whether Preyer’s words could reasonably be interpreted as harmful.

Furthermore, the court considered the context of the encounter, emphasizing that health professionals are entitled to conduct their duties free from verbal abuse. The established testimony reflected a pattern of escalating hostility from Preyer, culminating in the use of vulgar language that constituted harassment under section 11. The court stressed the importance of maintaining a safe and respectful environment in healthcare settings.

The evidence presented by multiple hospital staff, including their observations of Mayongo's distress and Preyer’s aggressive demeanor, supported the findings. The court found Preyer's contentions of feeling victimized by discrimination to lack credibility, attributing his behavior to an inflated sense of self-importance rather than legitimate grievances regarding treatment.

REMEDY

The court ordered several remedies, including the immediate payment of costs by Preyer to Mayongo. Furthermore, the court mandated that the parties arrange with the registrar for a date to determine any necessary further remedies. This reflects the court’s commitment to not only address the immediate violations but also ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent recurrence.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The court established several key legal principles, including: - The definition of hate speech under PEPUDA requires a contextual analysis to determine if the language employed could incite harm or propagate hatred. - Harassment in the workplace, particularly in healthcare settings, is actionable under PEPUDA, reinforcing the obligation of patients to interact respectfully with healthcare providers. - The testimony of witnesses and circumstantial evidence can significantly enhance the credibility of an applicant's claims, particularly in cases of verbal abuse and discrimination.

Overall, this case serves as an essential precedent for understanding the application of PEPUDA in healthcare environments, reinforcing the dignity and rights of healthcare professionals against racially prejudiced and abusive conduct.