IN THE EQUALITY COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: EC 03/24
Reportable
In the matter between
AGREEMENT FUNEKA MAYONGO APPLICANT

AND

MARK PREYER
RESPONDENT
Date of Hearing : 25 November 2025
Date of Delivering : 09 December 2025

ORDER

FINDINGS AND ORDER

(a) Mark Preyer communicated the word Kaffir to Agreement Funeka Mayongo
on 19 February 2024 at Mediclinic Cape Town in contravention of the
prohibition of hate speech as envisaged in section 10(1) of the PEPUDA.
(b) Mark Preyer communicated the words poes, your mothers poes and fucking
bitch to Agreement Funeka Mayongo in contravention of the prohibition of
harassment as envisaged in section 11 of PEPUDA.
(c) Mark Preyer to pay the costs.
(d) Mark Preyer is ordered to pay th e wasted costs occasioned by the
postponement of 3 June 2025.
(e) The parties are to arrange, within 10 days of this order, with the Registrar of
Thulare, J in respect of the date for the determination of an appropriate
remedy.


JUDGMENT


THULARE J

[1] This is an opposed complaint of alleged racial discrimination and hate speech
by the respondent (Preyer) directed at the complainant (Mayongo) in terms of the
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act No.
4 of 2000) (PEPUDA) . The complain ant is a nurse in triage at Mediclinic Cape
Town (the hospital), and the respondent presented as a patient on 19 February 2024
at around 17H00. It is what allegedly happened between them and was allegedly

said by the respondent to the complainant when only the two of them were behind
a closed door in the room used as triage, that was the subject of the complaint.
Whilst there was visual video fo otage, unsurprisingly because of the privacy laws
of the country especially in a hospital and patient scenario, there was no audio
capture of what happened in that room.

[2] The evidence from those working for as well as those who work at th e hospital
was that the hospital has two entrances , to wit, the main entrance and the
emergency care entrance. Each entrance has its own receptionist. The main
entrance is used by everyone else attending for general medical care with doctors
whilst the emergency care entrance is closer to trauma units of which triage is one
and is used for those who require emergency medical care. Triage is the first point
of contact of a patient in the trauma unit with medical professionals , a sister and a
doctor. The triage is used to determine the order of priority for those presented to
the trauma unit. The triage methodology at the hospital is a process which placed
those with serious injuries or medical conditions as priority. Triage involved
assessing the patient’s condition, pain level and consideration of vital signs to
allocate a colour -coded priority with red for urgent, followed by orange and
yellow. Much d epended on the seriousness of the injuries or condition of the
patient. For less serious cases, a trauma screening questionnaire was used, which
was both a self-reported assessment by the patient and a general medical opinion
by the nurse . The attending nurse asked the patient questions and noted their own
observations on which their general opinion was based. T he overall assessment
was done by a total score, which was translated into the colours mentioned.
Mayongo scored Preyer yellow . This was an indication that Preyer was not a
priority patient and that there were other patients who required priority attention

before him. That standard assessment procedure included further patient details
which were sourced from the patient , and a recording of the medical observations
like vital signs, before the patient was seen by the doctor. Mayongo was busy with
this process on Preyer , in triage, screening him and asking questions to complete
the questionnaire when the alleged words were said to her by Preyer. None of the
people from the hospital knew Preyer before that day.

[3] Nobulali Nkayi (Nkayi) was on duty that afternoon as a receptionist . Her
attention was drawn to Preyer, who was at the time outside the emergency care
entrance and trying to forcefully open the door. A person who presented at the door
would ordinarily press a button which was situated next to the door to draw the
attention of the receptionist to their presence and wish to enter the trauma unit area.
The entry and exit in that area is managed through a locked door , which could be
opened from the reception desk . Seeing that Preyer was forcefully trying to open
the door, Nkayi unlocked the door and Preyer ente red. She noted a minor wound
on Preyer’s foot. She took Preyer’s personal details and opened a file for him. She
then explained to Preyer that the trauma unit was busy and that he should join the
other patients who were already in the waiting area. Preyer refused to accept that
he had to wait for up to an hour or two. Preyer did not accept that he had to join the
queue and wait his turn. He demanded immediate attention. He was aggressive and
rude when he spoke to her. The behaviour of Preyer led to Nkayi approaching
Mayongo when Mayongo left the consultation room and came to the waiting area
to see the next patient . Mayongo spoke to Preyer and Nkayi saw when Mayongo
led Preyer to the triage. From her reception desk, Nkayi could not hear what was
said between Mayongo and Preyer inside the triage, but she could hear that Preyer
was shouting . She saw when Mayongo left Preyer in the triage to call a senior

nurse. Mayongo was visibly upset and was crying when she left triage . She saw
when the senior nurse, and later Dr Thomas attended Preyer. She also saw when Dr
Thomas escorted Preyer out of the trauma unit.

[4] Mayongo was on duty as the nurse in triage doing a day shift that day and
attended Preyer. Preyer was not a patient she called from the waiting area.
Mayongo was called by the receptionist and requested to assist the patient in triage.
Mayongo approached Preyer and introduced herself. She took Preyer into the
triage room, for privacy as per the process. She could not and did not assess Preyer
in the reception. She observed the wound on Preyers foot and concluded that it was
not an emergency and priority case, and as such proceeded to subject Preyer to the
further triage process of assessment. Amongst other clinic al observations, the
wound was not actively bleeding. She asked Preyer questions and was noting his
answers down as part of her assessment. Whilst asking him questions, Preyer got
angry and started swearing at her. It was a verbal attack full of obscenities. Preyer
called her a bitch. He told her that she was not supposed to be a nurse, that she was
a fuck ing bitch and that he was going to fuck her . Preyer called her kaffir, your
poes and your mothers poes. Preyer asked if there was nobody else that could help
him besides her. Because of the attack from Preyer Mayongo became distraught
and started crying. Mayongo left the room hurt, upset and crying, and went to
report to her superiors, who were Sisters Samuels, June Swan and Dr Thomas. The
behaviour of Preyer caused him to be given only the necessary care and be
escorted out of the hospital. Preyer was given first aid, and after he was given first
aid he was escorted out of the hospital and directed to the other nearest medical
facility for further att ention. The incident embarrassed and hurt her. She was
attacked and embarrassed in front of her colleagues and patients. It caused her

trauma, low self-esteem and affected her emotionally. It caused her to have doubts
about herself and has made her to be emotional when she enters the hospital.

[5] Eurasia Samuels was a registered nurse working at the hospital for 23 years and
served as the senior nurse responsible for triage . She worked with Mayongo since
2023 and with Dr Thomas since 2016. Samuels knew Mayongo as a soft -spoken,
hardworking, resilient and skilled nurse in patient communication. Part of her
duties included responding to junior nurses who required assistance during triage
assessments. S amuels was walking towards the reception t o make copies for a
patient’s folder when she heard aggressive language being used in the triage. She
heard a loud voice, someone calling the triage nurse a fucking bitch. She then went
into the triage room . She was in the triage when Preyer referred to Mayongo as a
fucking bitch. She found Mayongo crying, very upset and visibly distressed.
Mayongo requested her assistance. She then told Mayongo that she would take
over and attend to the patient. Although the hospital staff, inclu ding Mayongo,
were frequently subjected to verbal abuse by patients, she was surprised to see
Mayongo in tears that day. At that time when she saw Mayongo in tears in the
triage room, she was not yet aware but only became aware that Preyer had also
allegedly called Mayongo a kaffir when Mayongo later reported this to Dr Thomas.
Mayongo left to report on the matter to the attending doctor, Dr Thomas. The
patient was Preyer. She explained to Preyer the procedure at triage. She did not
personally hear the other insults that Mayongo mentioned to her, but Mayongo told
her that amongst others, Preyer called her kaffir. The incident was reported to Dr
Thomas who was the head of the emergency unit , as well as Sister Swan who was
the supervisor in charge of the hospital. She was present when Dr Thomas and
Sister Swan saw and spoke to Preyer. Due to Preyer’s disruptive behaviour, he was

moved to a private room. Preyer admitted to swearing at Mayongo. Dr Thomas
informed Preyer that the hospital did not tolerate verbal abuse of its staff members.
Dr Thomas also advised Preyer that he could get further treatment at another
hospital. Preyer insulted Dr Thomas, telling Dr Thomas to fuck off. Preyer’s
wound was cleaned and dressed, and he was escorted out of the emergency unit by
security.

[6] Dr Grant Thomas is one of the two directors of the Emergency Centre in the
hospital. He was on duty that afternoon and t he alleged incident involving
Mayongo and Preyer and the intervention of Samuels was reported to him.
Mayongo approached Dr Thomas and amongst others reported that Preyer was
rude to her and had called her a f ucking bitch and a kaffir. Dr Preyer went to triage
and caused Preyer to be brought into the clinical area and placed in bed 6, which
was one of the beds which could be drawn close and provide some privacy. It was
private cubicle. When he spoke to Preyer there, Swan and Samuels were present.
He informed Preyer about the allegations made by Mayongo, including her being
called kaffir and fuc king bitch. Preyer did not deny the allegations made against
him. This, according to Dr Thomas, meant that Preyer admitted having used the
language he was accused of. Dr Thomas then informed Preyer that the use of the
words were against Mayongos basic human rights and against the laws of the
country, the hospital and the emergency centre practice and that the emergency
centre had a strong stance against such behaviour and in that light affirmed its right
to refusal of treatment. Dr Thomas explained the respective r ights of patients and
healthcare practitioners, referencing Batho Pele principles. In this, Dr Thomas was
trying to de-escalate the situation. Preyer then told Dr Thomas to fuck off . Dr
Thomas realized that his attempts to de-escalate was not possible.

[7] Dr Thomas offered Preyer basic emergency care . He instructed Samu els to
dress Preyer’s wound. Preyer refused the treatment offered , left bed 6 and walked
to the main reception where he demanded to be seen by one of the hospital doctors.
Dr Thomas, Swan and security followed him to the main reception area. The
receptionist informed him that emergency care was provided in the emergency
centre. Dr Thomas repeated to Preyer that he would be provided only with basic
emergency care and provided him with the details of the nearest facilit ies that
would be able to assist him . Preyer then called Dr Thomas a fucking racist. This
was in front of the public in the main hospital reception area. Preyer then
threatened to sue the hospital if he was not provided with basic emergency care. He
was accompanied back to the emergency centre to bed 6 where he was provided
basic emergency care by Samuels and provided with the details of the C hristiaan
Barnard Memorial Hospital (CBMH) and New Somerset Emergency Care units for
further treatment. Preyer then left the emergency centre escorted by security . Dr
Thomas indicated that he had never before encountered a patient who was so rude
and arrogant, and further indicated that he was particularly disturbed by the racist
remarks, given South Africa’s history. Dr Thomas knew Mayongo very well ,
having worked with her for approximately 3 years before the incident.

[8] Nkosinathi Skitasi (Skitasi) was the security site supervisor on duty at the
hospital that afternoon. A security officer who was directly involved in the matter ,
Sanele Qumba, no longer worked with them. It was Qumba who called Skitasi who
was at the time in the main entrance reception area , to the emergency care unit
area. This is where he met Preyer and Dr Thomas . Skitasi saw that Preyer had a
minor cut which was not actively bleeding. Dr Thomas asked Skitasi to remove

Preyer f rom the premises. Dr Thomas told Skitasi that the reason for his
instructions to remove the patient was that Preyer had been rude to a nurse and Dr
Thomas himself. In the conversation, amongst others Dr Thomas told Skit asi that
Preyer had sworn at a nurse, calling the nurse a fucking bitch. Skitasi himself heard
when in his presence, Preyer told Dr Thomas to fuck off. Skitasi did not touch
Preyer but asked Preyer to remove himself from the premises. Preyer insisted that
security personnel p hysically touch him, but Skitasi told him that it was not in
terms of their security procedures and protocols to lay a hand on him. This Preyer
did whilst capturing footage of what was happening on his own mobile phone.
Preyer ultimately walked out voluntarily and was not physically removed but was
escorted out. As they moved to where Preyer had parked his motor bike, Preyer
told Skitasi that he sought attention to the injury on his foot, which he, Preyer, had
sustained a few days before that afternoon.

[9] Preyer’s case was that he travelled on a motorcycle in traffic that afternoon
when a vehicle reversed towards him. Whilst taking evasive action he dropped the
motorcycle and, in the process, sustained an injury. It was a deep flesh open wound
on his right shin. He was in extreme shock and pain. He was bleeding profusely.
He quic kly rode to the nearest hospital for emergency treatment, which was
Mediclinic at Gardens. Upon arrival he attempted to open the entrance door, which
the receptionist then opened for him. He entered the emergency clinic still bleeding
profusely with blood dripping onto the floor as he walked in. He approached the
receptionist who appeared disinterested as she was busy on the phone . She did not
even look up but just informed him that he had to wait. The receptionist requested
his personal information but did not inspect his wound. He became upset as he
believed that his injury was serious and that insufficient attention was being given

to it. He expressed his unhappiness with the situation and the receptionist then
called a triage nurse to check him in. He felt hostility towards him by staff
probably because they thought he was rude although no swearing had yet occurred.
He was thereafter directed to triage . When he entered the triage, the nurse looked
up at him with an expression of naked h ostility. He was informed in triage that
administrative forms would first need to be completed. The nurse, very slowly,
went through the administrative process of checking him in. She still had not even
looked at his wound which was dripping blood onto the floor of the triage room.
This further angered him as he felt that his wound should have been prioritized. He
asked Mayongo how long it would take before she examined the wound, however,
she continued completing documentation without responding.

[10] It was at this point that he felt that he was deliberately mistreated. His feeling
was that he was being racially prejudiced. He became angry at the nurse. The
situation escalated to a point where she swore at her. He did not recall the full
exchange leading up to the shouting . He admitted that in his state of shock and
agitation, he shouted at Mayongo and called her a fucking bitch. He denied calling
her kaffir. He was usually a calm person so he was not proud that he lost his
temper. The combination of shock, pain, blood and a feeling of being discriminated
against overcame him. He was certain that he never said anything racially
offensive as this is one of his cardinal rules in life. Mayongo lied when she accused
him of calling her a kaffir. He was increasingly frustrated by what he perceived as
a lack of urgency from the hospital staff. His frustration carried over into his
interaction with Mayon go. When he was taken from triage to the treatment room,
Dr Thomas approached him with an attitude of extreme hostility. Dr Thomas had
immediately taken the side of Mayongo and believed her allegation that he had

called her kaffir. Dr Thomas was not interested in his side of the story. Dr Thomas
attitude compounded his perception that he was racially discriminated against. Dr
Thomas told him that he, being Dr Thomas, would not be treating him, being
Preyer. Dr Thomas asked him to leave the hospital. He felt at the time that there
was an attempt to exploit him financially because he perceived himself as wealthy .
He acknowledged that he had been rude to hospital staff that day but insisted that it
was due to shock. He then rode his motorcycle across town to CBMH where he
was treated for shock and injury which required 11 stitches. On admission at
CBMH his blood pressure was measured at 170. His normal blood pressure was
120. The difference supported his case that he was in shock. There was no sound
on the cctv footage but the body language of Mayongo was calm and at one point
she was smiling. This footage was not consistent with someone who was
traumatized. Swearing at someone , in shock and frustration under the
circumstances, was not hate speech.

[11] Skitasi and Preyer had a casual discussion as Skitasi escorted Preyer out of the
hospital building on to the parking lot where Preyers motorcycle was parked. The
casual discussion included the statement by Preyer that he sustained the injury a
few days before the day he at tended the hospital to have the wound medically
assessed. This statement was voluntarily made by Preyer to Skitasi . There was
nothing of concern as regards the crucial context in which the statement was made.
There was no indication of any coercion, promise, intimidation , threats or any
other untoward factor which could affect the weight of the evidence or which
diminished its credibility. There was nothing that adversely impacted on the
statement, arising out of the circumstances under which it was made. Skitasi did
not obtain this statement in an improper or unfair manner. Skitasi did not contradict

himself on the statement and there were no inconsistencies within the statement or
in respect of any other part of the totality of his ev idence. Skitasi was a reliable
witness. The evidence of Skitasi on the statement of Preyer as regards the status of
the wound was corroborated by Skitasis own observation of the injury, as well as
the evidence of the receptionist and the medical staff at the hospital. The sum of
the observation of the hospital witnesses was that it was a minor wound which was
not bleeding and did not qual ify as a serious injury which required priority
attention that afternoon . The weigh t of the totality of the evidence makes the
statement made by Preyer to Skitasi reliable and the statement points to the truth.
Skitasi was not the only witness on the status of the wound . The admissibility and
weight of the statement made by Preyer to Skitasi is critical, and seen against the
totality of the evidence, establi shed that Preyers evidence that he entered the
emergency care unit at the hospital with a fresh wound that was bleeding was
untrue. There was no coercion . Preyer acted voluntarily, out of some self -interest.
No detriment to the administration of justice is apparent. In Makhala & Another v
S (438/20) [2022] ZASCA 19; 2022 (1) SACR 485 (SCA); [2022] 2 All SA 367
(SCA) (18 February 2022) it was said at para 39:
[39] In summation, then, whether under s 35(5) of the Constitution or at common law, the two
statements were not obtained in violation of Luzuko Makhala’s rights. The trial was not rendered
unfair by the admission of the statements, nor was there anything done in securing the statements
that constituted any material detriment to the administration of justice.
The SCA spoke in the context of a criminal matter, but the principles are equally
applicable in an Equality Court.

[12] Preyer knew that he was bringing a few days old wound into the hospital. He
did not want to attend to a doctor on the ordinary course, which included an

appointment and/or waiting your turn. This explain ed why he did not use the main
entrance, where in the absence of a specific doctor’s appointment, waiting was
unavoidable. It was a deliberate and calculated choice to go to the emergency care
unit. Pressing a button did not fit into his plans. He entered with a bang. He
forcefully attempted to open the door. This was calculated to start attention in an
energetic and noticeable way. To draw attention, and to make his entry stand out
from the start, his entry had to be dramatic and impressive, for his quest to be
successful. To get his way, he had to start with a bang, never to slow down and
make sure that his arrival was action packed. To maintain momentum, he made
sure that his presence was forceful and not quiet or timid. It is not surprising that
he deman ded the extraordinary. Receptionists at health facilities do not assess
injuries and do not provide medical attention.

[13] Preyer made it a big issue that Nkayi provided the service that receptionists
do, of taking his personal details, but did not insp ect the wound. Preyer
deliberately created a n objectively non-existent but self -created crisis. It yielded
the desired results. The unexpected disorder caused by Preyer caused Nkayi a
sudden period of intense fear. Although there was no real danger or apparent cause
in sticking to due process, Preyer’s conduct triggered a reaction that would
expedite the stressful situation to end and to avoid a sense of impending doom or
danger to continue. The situation was hard to manage on her own. To get help from
the situation, which was hard to manage on her own, Nkayi called for the
assistance of Mayongo to manage Preyer. To manage Preyer’s dramatic presence,
Mayongo caused Preyer to skip the queue. He did not have to join other patients in
waiting for the just over an hour estimated waiting time, some of whom may have
been priority cases over him.

[14] One d oes not need to be a medical practitioner to conclude that on a balance
of probabilities, Preyer did not bleed profusely, and in fact, did not bleed at all.
One only requires functional literacy of the complex human body, which basic
education especially in the subject of B iology between grades 8 and 12 in the
South African basic Education school programme provided. From that basic
functional literacy about the body, one knows that the shin, in respect of blood,
mainly has arteries, nerves and capillar ies, which together with the muscles are
responsible for the motor, sensory, electric and blood flow to and from the lower
limb. The capillaries are tiny blood vessels that connect arteries and veins to
deliver nutrients and oxygen to body cells. It is injury to the capillaries, nerves and
the arteries which cause bleeding. Injury to the capillaries often lead to slow
bleeding whose intensity is influenced by multiplicity of capillaries affected.

[15] Profuse bleeding normally follows injury to the nerves and arteries. Loss of
blood, which may lead to failure of delivery of oxygen and nutrients to the vital
organs can lead to death. Any active bleeding is potentially fatal, and depending on
its intensity, makes out a case for priority. It is a notori ous fact that hospitals in
South Africa have generally separated admission into their facilities by putting in
systems to immediately identify patients who attend for general medical care
requirements from those requiring priority attention. This is the re ason why the
hospital had two entrances, to wit, a general medical care main entrance and a
special emergency medical care unit with its own entrance. Because of the
sensitivity and risks associated with emergency medical care for priority cases, it is
not surprising that access there is strictly controlled, and one cannot just walk in.

[16] In South Africa medical practitioners, which includes nurses and doctors, and
not receptionists even if they work in a hospital, take the Hippocratic Oath, which
is a foundational ethical pledge which emphasized principles like the commitment
to patient care. In its beneficence principle medical practitioners make a
commitment to always act in the best interests of the patient. In its professionalism
principle medical p ractitioners commit to uphold the integrity of the medical
profession. The oath is a moral compass for medical practitioners and influences
their ethics and practice. It ensures that health professionals display the highest
standards of care and ethical co nduct. Blood flowing, including on to the floor is a
health risk for both practitioners, workers, patients and visitors. Profuse bleeding
would be a health risk and from the triage system explained by the hospital, the
immediate reaction of the health prof essionals would be to identify the source of
the bleeding, control the bleeding, clean up the wound and stop the bleeding. This
would be necessary to intervene in the risk of Preyer losing too much blood and
dying.

[17] Preyer had a dirty injury in that it was not sustained within a medically
controlled environment with sterilized tools by medical professionals . This means
that there was an added risk of foreign objects , bacteria or even a blood clot
entering his bloodstream. These risks would have immediately upon entry earned
the colour red and, depending on the source of the bleeding, would most probably
have caused Preyer to be taken directly to the private cubicle for Dr Thomas for
attention as an urgent priority . On the facts, there was no reason why the hospital
would have ignored Preyer with the risk of death and not attended to him as his
case demanded, as he wanted this court to believe. It is a well -known fact that the

hospital is not a public one. It is a private hospital, which means it is funded by
private medical insurance or direct payments by patients. As the evidence showed,
there was another private hospital close by to which Preyer allegedly attended after
leaving the premises. The hospitals compete for care. Preyer arrived in the
afternoon when there were other patients waiting . The suggestion that for no
reason, the hospital will disregard a profusely bleeding patient in a competitive
market, with other patients wa tching, is simply a long shot. On the balance of
probabilities, having accepted that it was an old wound, I also accept that it was not
a grievous injury, it was not bleeding and the hospital correctly classified it as
yellow and not requiring urgent attention.

[18] Preyer went to the hospital driven by a superiority complex. He approached
the hospital with a feeling that he deserved privileges and special treatment . He
thought that he was better than others and did not deserve to wait in the queue. His
exaggerated feeling of being better than others caused him to act in a manner that
could cause urgent attention to a general medical condition which did not require
any emergency care. He acted in an arrogant, boastful and condescending manner
to Nkayi. He was disdainful and bossy towards her. He exaggerated his in jury and
saw it and himself as dramatically superior to other patients. Whilst he was the
patient and not an administrator or medical staff at the hospital, he wanted to
control and dominate the situation and to dictate his medical care. Mayongo
correctly handled him by removing him from the public spectacle to a secluded
area. It is the exaggerated sense of being better than others that did not tolerate
Mayongo, after removing him from the public glare to the private room of triage ,
subjecting him to the processes due to his condition.

[19] Preyer was encamped. He became dismissive of Mayongos opinion that his
injury was not urgent and did not require being prioritized. His superiority complex
did not allow him to accept due process. He did not see Mayongo as superior, as a
medical professional in comparison to him as a lay person , when it came to a
medical opinion. He e xpected his opinion on his medical condition to be
recognized by Mayongo as superior to hers even if he was without any medical
training. He was preoccupied with fantasies of his own brilliance. He believed he
was superior to Mayongo and that Mayongo did not recognise that he was special .
He looked down on Mayongo . She was not important. She was not a doctor. He
expected her to again give him special favours and expected her to do wha t he
wanted without questioning him or subjecting him to due process. He had to take
advantage of her to get what he wanted.

[20] He had to triumph, and the best way he knew was to dominate and belittle
Mayongo with obscenity, as a way of making fun of her and dismissing her opinion
and replace it with the excessive opinion of himself and his self -worth, and to
assert his status . His obscenity to Mayongo , in the world of Preyer’s superiority,
became an overcompensation for feelings of failure or inadequacy in the face of a
firm but kind African nurse. During the assessment in triage in the face of attempts
to undermine authority and skip the queue to see the doctor before other deserving
patients, Preyer called Mayongo poes, called her mother’s poes, called her a kaffir
and called her a fucking bitch . This is what upset Mayongo, broke her and caused
her to cry. Samuels and Nkayi heard the loud voice with which these insults were
hurled but did not hear the exact words from outside . Samuels did not hear the
other words, but when she went into the triage, she heard when Pr eyer called
Mayongo fucking bitch. Mayongos evidence was substantially satisfactory in all

material respects and was corroborated by other evidence [Stevens v S [2005] 1 All
SA 1 (SCA))at para 17]. Stevens was a criminal case but the principles are equally
applicable to this matter as regards the approach to the evidence of a single
witness. Samuels corroborated some of the obscene language used by Preyer. The
other witnesses, Skitasi, Nkayi, and Dr Thomas including Samuels provided
circumstantial evidence [ S v Deppe & Douman (512/2012) [2013] ZASCA (7
March 2013) ]. This case is also authority for the approach to the evidence of
someone who lied like Preyer.

[21] Preyer is one of those who think that the world revolves around them . His
conduct showed an exaggerated sense of importance and entitlement. He exploit ed
the personal interplay with the hospital st aff for his own gain and was
demonstrably arrogant. He could not imagine himself being attended to by a nurse
and expected a freeway directly to the doctor on duty in the emergency unit when
his medical condition was not urgent. He was preoccupied with his power trip.
Preyer has such a deep sense of self-importance that he lacked the ability to
understand that he hurt Mayongo and did not c are about her feelings and that of
other hospital staff.

[22] Preyer also lacked the capacity to accept the views of others and was upset by
criticism. This explains why when he was confronted with his unacceptable
behaviour, he told both Samuels and Dr Thomas to fuck off. Whilst the hospital ,
from Nkayi to Dr Tho mas, tried to do everything in their power to accommodate
Preyer, Preyer used and abused them. He wanted a one -sided affair, where he was
in authority, including on medical opinions , at the hospital where he was admitted

as a patient. Dr Thomas had none of that and protected both the staff and the
hospital. Dr Thomas set firm boundaries when he re alised that there was nothing
they could say or do to change Preyer. In clear terms Dr Thomas told Preyer that
his conduct could not be tolerated . Dr Thomas remained calm and neutral even
when he was emotionally pricked by being told that he was a racist and to fuck off.
He absorbed Preyer’s manipulation and maintained control, which neutralized
Preyer’s drama. Preyer was unhappy and disappointed when Dr Thomas did not
yield to his att itude and did not give him the special favo ur of being seen by Dr
Thomas ahead of other patients, which Preyer thought he deserved. His desire was
not fulfilled and he was troubled. He called Dr Thomas a racist and threatened to
sue the hospital. Ultimately, Preyer got w hat was due to him , which was basic
medical care provided by a nurse and he left the hospital.

[23] Preyer was impatient with Nkayi , Mayongo and Samuels, and the three
provided him with some special treatment . He was angry at Mayongo and Dr
Thomas when they did not give him special recognition and priority medical
treatment. He felt slighted . He reacted to both Mayongo and Dr Thomas with
contempt when his exaggerated medical condition was exposed and his quest for
priority care failed. It seems to me that racists have a fragile ego. Where their flaws
are exposed, they blame their victims to maintain their image and to avoid shame.
Preyer, in his defence before this court, created a distorted reality and tried to shift
the blame to the hospital staff, from Nkayi, through Mayongo and Samuels up to
Dr Thomas. According to his version, he was right , including on the state of his
injury, and all, including the medical practitioners, were wro ng. On his version for
inexplicable reasons, in the presence of other patients, the hospital staff, including
its medical practitioners, refused to treat him beyond the basic care he required .

Preyer’s version is on a balance of probabilities false. It is what in English law is
called a cock and bull story [Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 All ER 649]. Preyer asserts a
right to lie, in his defence.

[24] Section 10(1) of PEPUDA (the Act) reads as follows:
Prohibition of hate speech
(1) Subject to the proviso in section 12, no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate
words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, aga inst any person, that could reasonably be
construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm and to promote or propagate
hatred.
Section 11 reads:
Prohibition of harassment
No person may subject any person to harassment.
In South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of
Deputies v Masuku and Another 2022 (2) SA 1 (CC) it was established that the test
to evaluate what was said, was an objective one [para 122]. To determine whether
the words were hate speech required a court to consider whether the words, heard
in their proper context by a reasonable person, would lead that person to conclude
that they were based on a prohibited ground and intended to incite harm or
propagate hatred. At para 144 the court said:
What this means is that, whilst the determination as to whether the words are likely to be
harmful and propagate hatred, and thus constitute hate speech , falls within the exclusive aegis of
a court, evidence that shines a light on the context of those words may be of assistance to that
court in conducting this exercise.
--

When a White person called an African person a kaffir, it propounds the racial
superiority of the White and the inferior ity of the African. I find that a reasonable
person would regard Preyer calling Mayongo a kaffir was a remark based on the
prohibited ground of race and intended to incite harm and propagate hatred and in
contravention of section 10(1) of the Act.

[25] The gratuitous use of the words poes directed to Mayongo and her mother in
the mother’s absence, and the use of the word fucking bitch on Mayongo were
meant to and in fact demea ned and humiliated her. They were meant to create a
hostile and intimidati ng environment for an African as a victim of White
supremacy. It constituted harassment as envisaged in section 11 of the Act
[Afriforum NPC v Neslon Mandela Foundation Trust and Others 2023 (4) SA 1
(SCA).

[26] When a matter is postponed in the Equality Court, there is an implied order for
the parties to attend the further hearing of the matter. A party who anticipated
missing a further date of hearing has a duty to apply for postponement before the
next date of set down. The application must include cogent reasons. A party should
never assume that on its mere say the court would grant a postponement but must
ensure that the other party is advised, and if that application is opposed, the
disputed postponement may of its own be set down for determination. Preyer set
out what happened and what was to happen in the email to the Secretary on the
morning of the hearing on 22 April 2025. His attitude undermined the case against
him. This court has already ordered that he pay the wasted costs of 22 April. His
attorneys at the time sought a postponement of 3 June 2025 and tendered the costs.

Although I am satisfied that Preyers attitude to the p roceedings on 22 April 2025
was contemptuous, in the light of his being ordered to pay the wasted costs, in my
view the matter should be left there. For these I make the findings and the orders.


________________________
DM THULARE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT