A Comment on a Ring: How a Lawyer’s R400k Claim Unravelled in Limpopo’s Courts

A seasoned Limpopo attorney’s quest for R400,000 in damages from a court clerk has been definitively shut down by the High Court in Polokwane, ending a four-year legal saga that began with a comment about a missing wedding ring.

The dispute dates back to September 2020 at the Mokopane Magistrate’s Court. Manki Oupa Thabethe, a former magistrate with 23 years of service, approached clerk Aletta van der Bank with a query. Noticing she wasn’t wearing her wedding ring, Thabethe remarked that hand sanitiserubiquitous during Covidmight have affected it. He then added that its absence might lead people to think she was “available for marriage.”

Van der Bank, maintaining professionalism, replied, “A wedding ring does not prevent you from doing wrong things,” and assisted him. But the next day, she went to the police to apply for a protection order against him, describing the exchange as inappropriate and unprofessional.

From Protection Order to Civil Claim

Thabethe successfully opposed the protection order in 2022, with a magistrate ruling the single conversation did not constitute harassment. Emboldened, he then turned the tables, suing van der Bank for R400,000. He argued she had “maliciously” and “wrongfully” laid a false charge, deliberately twisting a harmless chat to fabricate a case, thereby damaging his reputation and causing him emotional distress.

Van der Bank’s defence was straightforward: she had reasonable cause. Feeling uncomfortable and professionally compromised, she had sought advice from a senior attorney before acting. She stated Thabethe’s comments made her feel she had to defend herself at work and that she was medically booked off due to the distress.

The Court’s Final Word: No Malice, No Case

Now, the Limpopo High Court has upheld the earlier dismissal of Thabethe’s claim. In its judgment, the court drew a clear line between a failed legal action and a malicious one. Crucially, it found Thabethe failed to prove van der Bank acted without “reasonable and probable cause” or with “malice”both essential pillars for a malicious prosecution claim.

“The respondent found the conversation inappropriate and took offence,” the court noted. “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 was influenced by the fact that van der Bank had sought legal advice and had a documented medical reaction, supporting her genuine subjective distress. Thabethe’s appeal was dismissed with costs.

A Costly Lesson in Perception and Professional Boundaries

The case serves as a stark reminder of the fragile nature of workplace interactions and the perils of litigating perceived slights. For Thabethe, the journey from a comment about a ring to a R400,000 lawsuit has ended with a definitive legal bill. For van der Bank, the courts have validated her right to seek protection, even if the initial order wasn’t granted.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores a fundamental legal principle: taking a reasonable, advised legal step that ultimately fails is not the same as acting with malicious intent. In the end, the only thing proven was the high cost of misunderstanding.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com