Mokone v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd (21881/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 279 (25 November 2010)

Mokone v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd (21881/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 279 (25 November 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by a manager employed by the defendant. The defendant had a legal duty to protect its employees from such conduct. Although the defendant had a disciplinary code and ultimately acted after the written complaint to HR, its management and disciplinary structures were insufficient to address the initial complaint made to the plaintiff's manager. The failure to create a safe environment and to ensure that complaints were immediately referred to HR constituted a negligent omission. The plaintiff suffered a recognised psychiatric injury requiring treatment, as established by expert evidence and her own testimony. The...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 279
Parties
Plaintiff: G.G. Mokone; Defendant: Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2010
Case Number
21881/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
du Plessis
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employer Liability, Negligent Omission, Psychological Injury
Labour Law Delict Sexual Harassment Employer Liability Negligent Omission Psychological Injury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.G. Mokone

Plaintiff

Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was sexually harassed by a manager employed by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant negligently failed to provide a safe working environment free from sexual harassment.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result of the harassment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by a manager employed by the defendant. The defendant had a legal duty to protect its employees from such conduct. Although the defendant had a disciplinary code and ultimately acted after the written complaint to HR, its management and disciplinary structures were insufficient to address the initial complaint made to the plaintiff's manager. The failure to create a safe environment and to ensure that complaints were immediately referred to HR constituted a negligent omission. The plaintiff suffered a recognised psychiatric injury requiring treatment, as established by expert evidence and her own testimony. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of R60 000.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.