(1) REPORTABLE: NO
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JU DGES: NO
(3) RE V ISED: NO
----
12 August 2025
1
Case No : 2024-047761
In the matter between:
MARIUS NEL
LETICIA MEGIT
CHANTE NEL
and
JACQUES VENTER
JUDGMENT
FIRST APPLICANT
SECOND APPLICANT
THIRD APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
2
GOUWS, AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicants seek an order that the respondent be interdicted and restrained
from contacting or attempting to communicate with the applicants either
telephonically, via email, social media, sign language, or any other means which
can reasonably be construed to amount to communication; that the respondent
be interdicted from posting any information about or relating to any of the
applicants on social media; that the respondent be interdicted from passing the
residences and places of employment of the applicants; that the respondent be
interdicted from making any obscene signs towards the applicants either
personally or through the use of technology, and that the respondents also be
interdicted from instructing any third party to do so on his behalf; that the
respondent be interdicted and restrained from instructing any other person to
contact the applicants or cause harm to the applicants; that the respondent be
ordered to pay the costs of the application on a punitive scale.
[2] The application came before me on Monday 12 May 2025.
[3] Despite the fact that the respondent has filed an answering affidavit, there was
no appearance for the respondent at date of hearing. The application is
accordingly determined in the absence of the respondent.
3
[4] The applicant’s replying affidavit was filed two days out of time.
Condonation is granted for the late filing.
[5] The evidence is briefly summarised hereunder.
[6] During 2019, the second and third applicants’ relationship with the respondent
began to sour due to inappropriate work circumstances. It is stated that the
respondent, on nearly every occasion where he saw the second applicant,
showed his middle finger to her in an obscene manner with the intention to
demean and insult her. It was also stated that the respondent is the neighbour
of the first applicant, who also fell victim to the abuse and insults. It is alleged
that a protection order against the respondent was also applied for by the second
applicant, and it became settled during November 2022, where the respondent
agreed to refrain from conduct towards the second applicant or her family which
falls within the ambit of the definition of harassment as defined in the
Protection from Harassment Act, 2011. It is also alleged that t he respondent
agreed that there would be no communication to the second applicant
whatsoever, whether verbally or via electronic platform, and the respondent
undertook that he would not employ any third party to attempt such
communications other than throu gh a legal representative. The respondent
contends that these proceedings were instituted against his father’s brokerage.
[7] The first applicant is the father of the second applicant. He deposed to the
founding affidavit. He states that the second applicant has two minor children,
4
and as their grandfather he enjoys the visits with the children. When the second
applicant and the children would visit, the respondent would see their vehicle in
front of the first applicant’s house. The respondent would then go outside, yelling
obscenities towards all the applicants.
[8] The allegation is also that the respondent would, on repeated occasions, leave
his house and walk past the first applicant’s house, showing his middle finger to
the surveillance cameras, knowing full well that these cameras were monitored
during the day.
[9] A picture from the surveillance footage of the respondent allegedly conducting
himself in this manner was annexed to the founding papers. The picture is of
rather poor quality, and I am unable to make out the gesture described, or make
out the face of the individual on the photograph.
[10] An answering affidavit was filed where the respondent seeks to deal with the
allegations made by the applicants.
[11] I am not impressed by the quality of the denials proffered by the respondent,
which amount basically to a bare denial of the allegations.
[12] The point is made by the first applicant in the replying affidavit that the
respondent’s denial of the incidents, particularly where the middle finger is
shown to the surveillance cameras when he passes the first applicant’s
5
property, is unconvincing and does not constitute a true denial, insofar as it
seeks to attack the quality of the evidence .
[13] The respondent would for instance submit that the “quality of the attached
image is severely poor and the images appearing thereon are distorted as well
as pixilated” . Upon examination of the image, he admits “that the figure
appearing therein appears to be that of a person but it is impossible to positively
identify the gender nor identity of the person depicted thereon as the facial
features of said person are severely distorted”. The respondent states that “I
therefore submit that I cannot be positively identified by the image attached as
Annexure FA2 and that the applicants have failed to substantiate the averments
contained in this paragraph therewith”.
[14] This is not a denial that the person in the footage is him .
[15] He goes further and submits that “it is impossible to identify the position of the
person’s finger due to the poor quality of the attached image”. He concludes by
stating that “in the premises, I therefore specifically reiterate that the contents
of this paragraph are false and unsubstantiated” .
[16] Where the first applicant alleges that the respondent showed his middle finger
to the second applicant on nearly every occasion that presented, the
respondent answers by stating that he challenges the applicants to prove the
averments, because they have been unable to prove same in 2 judicial;
proceedings.
6
[17] What is lacking is an unqualified denial that the respondent ever showed his
middle finger to the applicants as they complain of, or that the was the person
appearing on the surveillance footage.
[18] I agree with the applicants’ criticism of the evidence. The respondent essentially
denies the probative value of the supporting evidence produced by the
applicants, as opposed to a true denial of the incidents complained of. He argues
that it is improbable that the conduct complained of would not be captured on
surveillance cameras, and argues that the applicants could have recorded the
conduct on their cellular phones.
[19] These denials are tenuous, and in the context of the answering affidavit as a
whole, they are indeed unconvincing.
[20] The Protection From Harassment Act, 2011 provides for an expansive definition
of “harassment”. It is defined as meaning directly or indirectly engaging in
conduct that the respondent knows or ought to know - (a) causes harm or
inspires the reasonable belief that harm may be caused to the complainant or a
related person by unreasonably - (i) following, watching, pursuing or accosting
of the complainant or a related person, or loitering outside of or near the building
or place where the complainant or a related person resides, works, carries on
business, studies or happens to be; (ii) engaging in verbal, electronic or any
other communication aimed at the complainant or a related person, by any
7
means, whether or not conversation ensues; or (iii) sending, delivering or
causing the delivery of letters, telegrams, packages, facsimiles, electronic mail
or other objects to the complainant or a related person or leaving them where
they will be found by, given to, or brought to the attention of, the complainant or
a related person…; 'harm' means any mental, psychological, physical or
economic harm.
[21] Absent any appearance on behalf of the respondent and the benefit of
countervailing argument, I am satisfied that a case has been made out in the
founding papers that demonstrate conduct on the part of the respondent that
falls within the purview of the definition of harassment.
[22] The respondent, on multiple occasions, directed vulgar language, obscene
hand gestures, and derogatory remarks towards the applicants. The
respondent has, at least, flouted the applicants’ clear right to dignity and privacy.
The conduct complained of is not isolated, but repetitive and calculated to cause
distress and humiliation.
[23] The applicants were compelled to seek the intervention of this Court.
They are entitled to the protection that they seek.
[24] On the question of costs, the respondent’s deliberate conduct, in defiance of a
prior undertaking, is clearly malicious.
8
[25] A costs order on an attorney-and-client scale is both justified and necessary to
deter such conduct in future.
[26] The evidence does not support each prayer sought in the notice of motion. This
much was conceded by the applicants’ counsel.
[27] Resultantly, I make the following order:
[1] The respondent is interdicted and restrained from engaging in any conduct
towards the applicants that would constitute harassment under the
provisions of the Protection From Harassment Act, 2011.
[2] The respondent in interdicted and restrained from-
[2.1] Shouting, yelling or directing any verbal abuse, threats or
obscenities at the applicants;
[2.2] Approaching or loitering outside the first applicant’s residence,
except when reasonably required for lawful purposes unrelated to
the applicants;
[2.3] Performing any gestures or acts of intimidation at the applicants,
or in the direction of the surveillance cameras at the first
applicant’s property;
9
[2.4] Communicating w ith the applicants in any form, directly or
indirectly, save through legal representatives and for lawful
purpose.
[3] The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application on a punitive
scale, as between attorney and client.
APPEARANCES:
FOR APPLICANTS:
FOR RESPONDENT:
SGGOUWS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT , PRETORIA
XT van Niekerk instructed by
ML SCHO EMAN ATTO R N EYS
klerk2@mlschoemanatt.co.za
No appearance; FR ITS SNYMAN ATTO R N EYS
10
info@fsplaw.co.za