Roberts v Mabuza (A091314/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 668 (2 July 2025)

Roberts v Mabuza (A091314/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 668 (2 July 2025)

The court found that Mr. Roberts's repeated use of profane and demeaning language, including calling Ms. Mabuza an 'asshole' and using the 'F' word multiple times during a workplace dispute, constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. The conduct was not trivial banter but an oppressive misuse of power that violated Ms. Mabuza's dignity and caused her serious distress, as evidenced by her criminal complaint and application for a protection order. The delay in seeking protection was deemed irrelevant, and the magistrate correctly considered all evidence, including the recorded conversation. The appeal was dismissed as the statutory threshold for harassment was met.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 668
Parties
Appellant: Garth Roberts; Respondent: Nonhlanhla Gcebile Mabuza
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2025
Case Number
A091314/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Protection Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; protection order confirmed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mabesela, Motha
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment Act, Harassment, Verbal Abuse, Workplace Misconduct
Civil Procedure Family and Children Protection From Harassment Act Harassment Verbal Abuse Workplace Misconduct

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garth Roberts

Appellant

Nonhlanhla Gcebile Mabuza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Protection Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the repeated use of profane and demeaning language by Mr. Roberts towards Ms. Mabuza constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Mr. Roberts justified the granting of a protection order.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in seeking protection affects the merits of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr. Roberts's repeated use of profane and demeaning language, including calling Ms. Mabuza an 'asshole' and using the 'F' word multiple times during a workplace dispute, constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. The conduct was not trivial banter but an oppressive misuse of power that violated Ms. Mabuza's dignity and caused her serious distress, as evidenced by her criminal complaint and application for a protection order. The delay in seeking protection was deemed irrelevant, and the magistrate correctly considered all evidence, including the recorded conversation. The appeal was dismissed as the statutory threshold for harassment was met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; protection order confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.