An Eastern Cape police officer who claimed R5m for alleged malicious proceedings and R1m for defamation, is walking away with R80,000 for damages after the minister of police was ordered to pay her that much.
Judge Avinash Govindjee, delivering the judgment in the Makhanda high court recently, said the police officer’s claim was “grossly extravagant”.
The civil claim came after the officer, a captain and acting visible policing (Vispol) support head at the Joza police station, reportedly said: “If you pick up the monkey, you need to feed it … If you take up the problem, you need to sort it out" during a parade in 2020.
She maintained that her utterance made no reference to people as monkeys.
An inquiry ensued, and she was charged with misconduct — intimidation or victimisation and unfair discrimination.
She was found guilty of unfair discrimination and dismissed on June 2021.
She challenged this outcome and was reinstated following an advisory arbitration award issued by the Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council (SSSBC) on December 6 2021.
She was only reinstated on June 22 2022.
In her claims, she said police unlawfully and intentionally published information that was defamatory, that she had referred to people as monkeys in statements under oath.
She said posters referring to her as a “white racist bitch” were placed on fences and doors at Joza.
On May 2 2021, her colleagues allowed these posters containing defamatory and derogatory statements to be affixed to entrances at the different sections of Joza, including the door of the plaintiff’s office and on vehicles parked in the backyard of the station.
She said that on May 19 2021 during an EFF protest, protesters were in possession of placards containing various defamatory statements, which were tied to the fence of the station.
To compound matters, the figures attached to the plaintiff’s claims were grossly extravagant.
— Judge Avinash Govindjee
Govindjee said it was common cause that unknown people referred to the plaintiff as a “racist” and a “bitch” in documents affixed to the walls of the police station.
“The word ‘bitch’ is clearly derogatory and abusive and, when coupled with reference to the plaintiff, a white woman, and the words ‘racist’, ‘monkeys’ and ‘baboons’, constitutes racially-charged communication.
“What the posters imputed to the plaintiff was both demeaning and expressly suggestive of the conclusion that she was racist.
“The statement that a person is a racist on its own carries a meaning that can defame.
“This exposed the plaintiff to contempt and animosity that rendered her less worthy of respect by her colleagues.
“The result is that the posters constituted published defamatory statement(s) concerning the plaintiff,” Govindjee said.
He said on the evidence, it must be accepted that police members allowed posters containing defamatory and derogatory statements, ... notably that she was a “racist” and a “bitch”, to be affixed at parts of the police station as pleaded.
“The police station was a space that was always secured, particularly during the Covid-19 period.
“Any significant incident ought to have been reported in an occurrence register.
“The posters were numerous and displayed in various areas close to where those on duty were situated.
“Applying these principles, the probabilities favour the conclusion that the defendant is vicarious liable …
“The workplace provided the location, opportunity and, in all probability, the tools to those who caused the plaintiff harm.
“It was clear from the plaintiff’s evidence that she was extremely hurt by this, both personally and professionally, and that this has had a lingering effect.
“There was little evidence on the extent of the publication, in the sense of how many police officers would likely have had sight of the posters, which were plastered all over the police station, or precisely how long it took for the posters to be removed.
“The plaintiff was a senior officer with a spotless record who was facing disciplinary action at the time of this incident.
“The aggravating features to be considered include the language used and the plethora of copies that were affixed in places designed to draw attention to all those who entered those areas of the precinct.
“It is relevant that the incident was either not properly investigated, or at least that there was no proper follow-up to the investigation, and that there has been no formal apology to the plaintiff.
“The extent of sentimental damages for defamation has implications for the properly mediated connection between dignity and free expression in that overly excessive amounts will deter and foster intolerance to the latter.
“It has also been said that monetary compensation for harm of this nature is not capable of being determined by any empirical measure and awards in other cases might, at best, provide a measure of general guidance.
“Having considered all these factors, I consider an amount of R80,000 to be an appropriate award.
“At least one of the pleaded defences to the defamation claim was grounded upon the plaintiff’s utterance of the word ‘monkey’ during the parade.
“The result is that some, but not all, of the issues that emerged in respect of the malicious proceedings claim were interwoven with the defamation claim, so that I prefer not to award separate costs order per claim.
“To compound matters, the figures attached to the plaintiff’s claims were grossly extravagant.
“The plaintiff claimed R5m for the alleged malicious proceedings and R1m for defamation.
“Yet heads of argument submitted on behalf of the plaintiff, at the conclusion of the trial, suggested that payment in the amount of only one third of the sum of those figures was appropriate.
“This amount was itself markedly higher than any of the comparable authorities relied upon in support of the quantum to be awarded and constitutes, at the very least, an irresponsible claim.
“The failure to assess quantum realistically is to be deprecated …”
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.