Pringle v Mailula

The appellant, Ms Gerda Ruth Pringle, was the principal of Eenheid Primary School and an ex lege member of the School Governing Body (SGB). The respondent, Mr Joseph Matome Mailula, was a parent member of the SGB. After his election, the respondent sent numerous emails to the appellant demanding access to school and SGB information, often outside business hours, accusing her of corruption and threatening complaints to authorities. At an SGB meeting on 1 June 2021, following his suspension from the SGB, the respondent became aggressive and, while pointing at white SGB members including the appellant, stated that he would “deal with Verwoerd’s kids”, which the appellant regarded as a racist slur and threat. Despite being blocked, the respondent continued contacting the appellant using alternative numbers. The appellant applied for a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011. An interim order was granted and later confirmed by the magistrates’ court after admitting further evidence in reply. On appeal, the High Court set aside the protection order on procedural fairness grounds, prompting a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal from the magistrates’ court, thereby reinstating the protection order. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment clarifies the scope of magistrates’ courts’ powers under the Protection from Harassment Act to admit further evidence on the return date and confirms the sui generis, victim-centred procedure envisaged by the Act. It reinforces that racially charged language linked to apartheid figures such as Verwoerd constitutes a racial slur, and affirms that persistent electronic communications coupled with threats can amount to harassment.