The “overbearing” father of a five-year-old pupil who attends Hendrik Louw Primary School in Strand, Cape Town, has been interdicted from entering or coming closer than 100 metres of the school.
Due to bullying and intimidation, the father – who cannot be named to protect the identity of his child – has also been court-ordered to refrain from threatening, harassing, or communicating in any manner, format, or platform with school staff.
This comes after the father, who described himself to the court as an “overbearing person”, adopted a regrettable stance on numerous occasions in his interactions with the school staff.
The conduct allegedly began at the end of January this year, when the burly father embarked on a campaign of belittling and intimidating the school principal, threatening the principal with violence, threatening the principal with the closure of the school, and threatening and intimidating the school, the school governing body, and aftercare staff.
The court pointed out that the dispute, which came before the Western Cape High Court, relates to the 140kg businessman’s conduct, and not his minor son, who is a type 1 diabetes patient.
Due to his son’s medical condition – for which the boy requires constant care and oversight and, at times, remedial care from the school – it was the genesis of the current dispute between staff and the father.
Approached for comment, the school and its legal counsel declined.
High Court Judge Derek Wille noted that the dad intimidated staff when he “adopted a regrettable stance in his interactions with the school staff regarding what he considered and considers sufficient and proper care for his son”.
“I say this because he advised that he had consulted no fewer than five advocates who had provided him with opinions regarding his rights with respect to the care of his minor son. Further, he stated that a ‘judge’ is his business partner and is assisting him with his litigation,” said Judge Wille.
The school staff argued that, on the father’s own version, he conceded that he is an overbearing person, made serious threats of intimidation, harassed the applicants, is guilty of severe grandstanding, and desired to pressure the applicants.
The applicants argued that the father’s behaviour is “extremely unpredictable”, for which they need protection.
In his arguments, the father submitted a series of complaints in his answering affidavit, but no real defences or legal defences to the applicants’ allegations.
“The respondent concedes that he made unnecessary and unwarranted comments but provides no acceptable reasons for his conduct. What is of grave concern to me is that the respondent stated that he would exert pressure on the applicants because his ‘business partner’ is a ‘judge’ of the High Court.
“When pressed on this issue, he changed his version and stated his remark was a misunderstanding, and what he meant to convey was that his business partner was not a judge but a magistrate,” said Judge Wille.
The court heard of the father’s threatening and bullying conduct, which caused severe stress and disturbance to the well-being of the principal and a teacher who suffers from severe anxiety as a result of the father’s alleged behaviour.
Judge Wille, in granting the final interdict, said in his judgment: “The applicants’ legal representatives repeatedly asked the respondent to provide an undertaking to cease his unlawful conduct. He refused outright. There is no evidence to suggest he will change his behaviour, especially given that the respondent says he is an atomic bomb that will explode.”
Chevon Booysen
iol.co.za