Former magistrate loses legal battle over 'wedding ring' comment

A FORMER magistrate's R400,000 damages claim against a court clerk who obtained a protection order after he made comments about her wedding ring has been dismissed by the Limpopo High Court, which found no malicious intent in her actions.

The court upheld an earlier ruling made by Regional Court, finding that Manki Oupa Thabethe, a former District Court Magistrate with 23 years of service, failed to prove that the respondent, Aletta van der Bank, acted maliciously when she reported him under the Protection from Harassment Act.

The dispute arose from a conversation they had in September 2020 at the Mokopane Magistrate’s Court, where Thabethe had gone to inquire about a default judgment application.

During the exchange, he commented on van der Bank not wearing her wedding ring and asked whether hand sanitiser had affected it, to which she responded in the affirmative. Thabethe then remarked that this was another unintended effect of Covid, suggesting that people might think she was available for marriage.

Van der Bank said she tried to remain professional and responded, “A wedding ring does not prevent you from doing wrong things.” She then assisted him, and he left.

The following day, she described the conversation as unprofessional and inappropriate and went to the police to apply for a protection order against him. Thabethe opposed the protection order in court in March 2022. The presiding officer granted him absolution after finding that the incident was a once-off conversation that did not amount to harassment.

Following that ruling, Thabethe instituted a civil action to recover R400,000 in damages from van der Bank, alleging that she had wrongfully and maliciously laid a false charge of harassment against him.

He claimed she deliberately decontextualised his statement to fabricate a harassment charge and argued that she knew the exchange was a harmless conversation between colleagues. He sought damages for harm to his reputation and emotional distress and alleged that van der Bank had lied about feeling humiliated, offended, and insulted.

In her defence, van der Bank argued that the harassment proceedings were based on reasonable and probable cause, supported by an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds. She stated that she had acted on the advice of a senior attorney and that she genuinely believed Thabethe had overstepped professional boundaries.

She said his conduct made her feel uncomfortable and forced her to defend herself at work, and that he had implied she was available despite knowing she was married. She also expressed concern that he might return, which she did not want.

Thabethe’s claim was dismissed by the Regional Court in April 2024, prompting him to appeal.

In a recent judgment, the high court found no basis to interfere with the lower court’s decision. It held that Thabethe failed to prove that van der Bank acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice — both essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim.

“The respondent found the conversation inappropriate and took offence. While the court did not agree that this amounted to harassment, it cannot be said that she acted maliciously by seeking legal protection,” the court said.

The court noted that van der Bank had sought advice from a senior attorney before approaching the court and had been medically booked off work following the incident, supporting her claim that she genuinely felt distressed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

POST