---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO: 4109/2005

DATE: 31/3/2005

not reportable

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

MARIA MAGDALENA ROBERTS APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 1^ST RESPONDENT

DIRECTOR VINCENT NTENGO 2^ND RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SERITI, J

This matter came before me in the urgent court on 18 February 2005. After reading the documents and hearing evidence, the applicant's application was dismissed with costs.

At the time I made the abovementioned order I gave no reasons but indicated that I will provide reasons if I am requested to do so by anyone of the parties.

I have received a request for reasons and my reasons follow hereunder.

The applicant brought an urgent application against the two respondents. In the notice of motion the applicant requested, inter alia, that a rule nisi be issued, with a return date, whereby the respondents are called upon to provide reasons why the court should not make the following order a final order, namely

1. That the first and second respondent or any person acting on their instructions, should not make any threats of a racial nature against the applicant.

2. That the first and second respondent or any person acting on their instructions should not direct any threats of a physical nature against the applicant.

2.3 That the first and second respondent or any person acting on their instructions should not contact the applicant in any manner except in the process of carrying out their duties.

2.4 That the first and second respondent or any person acting on their instructions should not assault the applicant or threaten her or cause her any harm.

2.5 That the first and second respondent or any person acting on their instructions should not victimise the applicant.

2.6 That the first and second respondent jointly and severally pay the costs of the applicant on an attorney and client scale.

In the founding affidavit the applicant states that she is an adult female person, employed by first respondent as a superintendent and stationed at Wonderboompoort police station, Mayville, Pretoria.

She is employed by first respondent in the Pretoria area and her functions include the management of Wonderboompoort police station. The second respondent is appointed as the Area Head: Detective Services.

Second respondent is also in the employment of first respondent and he acted at all relevant times within the scope of his employment.

0n 11 February 2005 in the morning she received a telephone call from the second respondent – the respondent said to her that he understands from Superintendent Mawasha that the applicant said that "Ntengo said that the CIAC cannot get detective vehicles".

She tried to explain to the respondent that that is not true, but the second respondent did not give her a chance to explain. Second respondent further said to her: "It is not that I hate white woman but I hate liars" and "I won't take you to court, I will deal with you physically". She asked second respondent if the above statements are a threat and second respondent did not answer her but instead said that he hates liars and he will deal with her physically.

She regarded the abovementioned utterances of the second respondent as a direct threat that second respondent intends causing her physical harm and she believes that second respondent is capable of carrying out his threats – she also believes that second respondent is capable of making her life difficult and that he has capacity to get people to harm her. She believes that the second respondent in the light of this application will start a victimisation campaign against her as he has done to other members of the police force in the past.

She fears that second respondent will start to be physically aggressive towards her in the light of the aggressive manner in which he dealt with her attorney when her attorney contacted him through the telephone.

When dealing with urgency, the applicant stated that:

1. she believes that the second respondent will implement his threats;

2. threats directed to her clearly indicates that second respondent and other people have intentions to harm her;

3. she knows that the South African Police Services is not in a position to provide her with full time security;

4. she does not have funds to secure services of a full time security service to protect her.

In the answering affidavit the second respondent states that he is a director and Area Head: Detective Services in the office of the Area Commissioner, Pretoria of the South African Police Services – he admits that he spoke to the applicant over the telephone on 11 February 2005 in the morning.

He further states that he phoned the applicant after Superintendent Mawasha had enquired from him about certain instructions he is suppose to have issued. Superintendent Mawasha had informed him that the applicant is alleged to have said that second respondent issued the said instructions – according to him he has never issued the said instructions.

When he called the applicant he was with Superintendent Mawasha. He did not issue any threats to the applicant – Superintendent Mawasha signed a confirmatory affidavit.

He again telephoned the applicant and instructed her to attend a meeting with him at the office of the Area Commissioner, and applicant refused to attend the said meeting. At this moment he was with Superintendent Mawayo who also signed a confirmatory affidavit.

Respondent denies that he at any stage threatened the applicant: he was agitated by the false allegations about instructions he is supposed to have issued.

Second respondent further alleged that during the first telephone conversation with applicant, applicant enquired from him whether he was agitated with her because she is a white woman, and he indicated to her that he does not hate white woman but that he hates liars.

He further denies that applicant enquired from him whether she can regard anything he said as a threat – he did not say or do anything which could have created an impression that the applicant was being threatened.

Second respondent further denies that he was aggressive towards the applicant's legal representative. He alleges that in fact Mr Hamman, the applicant's attorney, was aggressive towards him and he in fact demanded to know why "you black kaffirs ... want from white female officers". He has opened a criminal case against Mr Hamman at Pretoria Central Police Station under case no CAS805/02/2005.

In her replying affidavit the applicant concedes that during the telephone conversation between second respondent and her, Superintendent Mawasha was present as she heard Superintendent Mawasha explaining something to the second respondent. She agrees that she refused to obey instructions to attend a meeting with second respondent at the office of the Area Commissioner.

Applicant further stated that she agrees that second respondent indicated to her that he does not hate white women.

In Hix Networking Technologies v System Publishers (Pty) Ltd 1997 1 SA 391 (AD) at 398I J PLEWMAN, JA said the following:

"The legal principles governing interim interdicts in this country are well known. They can be briefly restated. The requisites are:

(a) a prima facie right;

(b) a well grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted;

(c) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim interdict; and

(d) that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy."

The applicant bears the onus of proof. Applicant must discharge the said onus on a balance of probabilities. As stated earlier the applicant alleges that on 11 February 2005 during a telephone conversation second respondent uttered certain words to her which she regarded as a threat. The second respondent denies that he directed any threats towards the applicant. A confirmatory affidavit signed by Superintendent Mawasha was filed.

Applicant further alleges that second respondent is capable of carrying out his threats.

The applicant does not disclose any sensible facts on which she relies to make the allegation that the second respondent is capable of carrying out his alleged threats.

She further states that she believes that second respondent is capable of making her life difficult and that he has capacity to get people to harm her.

The applicant did not disclose the basis which led to her believe that second respondent is capable of making her life difficult and that second respondent has capacity to get people to harm her. These are allegations without any foundation.

The applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case that she was threatened by the second respondent. She has also failed to demonstrate that her fear that she might be harmed or victimised is well grounded.

My view is that the applicant has failed to make any case for the relief as contained in her notice of motion.

W L SERITI

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

4109-2005

---