The Johannesburg High Court has upheld a protection order against a white man who called a black woman an “arsehole” during a meeting at billionaire Patrice Motsepe’s company.
In a judgment handed down earlier in July, presiding officer Meshack Mabesele dismissed an application brought by the applicant Garth Roberts against Nonhlanhla Mabuza, the respondent.
According to the judgment, on June 12, Roberts, who was the line manager of Mabuza at mining magnate Motsepe’s company, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), brought an appeal to appeal the judgment of the Randburg Magistrate’s Court, which granted Mabuza a protection order against Roberts.
Motsepe is the executive chairman of ARM. The court granted Mabuza the protection order on April 9, 2024.
Roberts brought his appeal application against the protection order on June 12, 2025, and the oral arguments in the matter were heard on the same day. His appeal application was not opposed.
Emphasis placed on power
“It is a common cause that Mr Roberts told Ms Mabuza that she signed an *f…..ing* paper because she is an a**h*l*. The issue in this appeal is to determine whether these utterances constitute harassment, justifying the order granted by the court below.
“I pause to mention that my brother, Motha J, enquired from junior counsel for Mr Roberts whether it is proper for a white man to call a black woman an ‘a**h*l*’ in this racially charged society. The answer was a clear ‘no’.
“Although the question raised with counsel is legitimate, I may add, though, that we are alive to the fact that the emphasis should not be placed on race in the matter before us.
“Instead, the emphasis should be placed on ‘power’. Harassment at the workplace knows no race. It is about misuse of power, thereby violating a person’s right to dignity and a right not to be subjected to psychological torture,” said Mabesele.
According to evidence presented during the court hearing, Mabuza joined the ARM company around 2019. Upon joining the company, she was placed on three months’ probation at a salary of R30 000 per month.
After serving her probation, she was confirmed on a permanent basis, but her salary was reduced to R27 000.
“No reasons were given to Ms Mabuza for this reduction. This discrepancy necessitated a meeting between Mr Roberts and Ms Mabuza.
“Present, also, at the meeting was HR employee Mr Merenca. The proceedings were recorded.
“Two years later (2021), Ms Mabuza laid a criminal charge against Mr Roberts for crimen injuria. A year (2022) later, she approached the Randburg Magistrate’s Court for a protection order against Mr Roberts,” said Mabesele.
Protection order
He said the issue in this appeal is to determine whether the utterances made by Roberts constitute harassment and not whether the evidence of Mabuza was persuasive or not for granting a protection order.
“Since Ms Mabuza did not withdraw her application for a protection order, logic dictates that the words that were uttered to her must have caused her serious distress.
“Therefore, the argument that she jettisoned reliance on the words that were uttered by Mr Roberts as a basis for seeking protection has no merit.
“Ms Mabuza wanted to give the court a bigger ‘picture’ of Mr Roberts in so far as he conducted himself whenever he spoke to her.
“The magistrate considered all evidence and documents presented to him (including recorded conversation) and correctly granted the order in favour of Ms Mabuza.
“The result is that this appeal cannot succeed. Since the appeal is not opposed, it will not be just for us to grant costs against the appellant,” said Mabesele.
Mabesele dismissed Roberts’ appeal. Mabesele did not make any order as to legal costs.
