- The High Court in Cape Town says the disputed "bobbejaan" remark was probably about technical difficulties, not racial abuse.
- The judge says Sanlam wrongly rejected the adviser's explanation because the phrase was not an officially recognised Afrikaans idiom.
- The court nevertheless dismissed the urgent application, finding other unresolved allegations could still justify ending the contract.
For Casper Jacobus Strydom, a single phrase uttered during a frustrating telephone call placed his 28-year relationship with Sanlam Life Insurance Limited on the line.
When his internet, telephone and computer systems repeatedly failed during a call with Sanlam consultant Kelsey Visagie, Strydom remarked to a colleague, "nou weer 'n bobbejaan op die lyn" ("there's a baboon on the line again"), an Afrikaans expression that he said referred to technical problems with the telephone connection. Visagie, who remained on the call, believed the comment was directed at her and lodged a complaint of racial harassment.
The High Court in Cape Town has now ruled that, on the evidence before it, the controversial "bobbejaan" comment was more likely a figurative reference to ongoing technical problems than a racist insult. Acting Judge AG Christians accepted that explanation on a prima facie basis, finding the independent enquiry had wrongly rejected it simply because the phrase was not an officially recognised Afrikaans idiom.
Even so, the judge refused to stop Sanlam from terminating Strydom's contract because separate allegations could still justify the decision at trial.
Workplace harassment complaint
Strydom had worked as an independent financial adviser for Sanlam for 28 years before the relationship unravelled following the January 2026 telephone call.
After Visagie complained, Sanlam referred the matter to an independent enquiry, which concluded that Strydom had breached the company's Workplace Harassment Policy. The enquiry found the comment amounted to racial harassment and recommended that his contract be terminated.
Sanlam accepted the recommendation and informed Strydom that the termination would take effect on 31 July 2026. Strydom approached the High Court in Cape Town on an urgent basis, seeking an interim interdict restoring and preserving the contractual relationship while he pursued an action to have the termination declared unlawful.
Judge accepts explanation
Strydom denied making a racist remark, explaining that he had been struggling with repeated failures of his telephone line, internet connection and computer system while trying to assist a client. He said the comment was made to a colleague about those technical problems and not about Visagie.
The court considered expert evidence from forensic linguist Dr Karien van den Berg, who analysed the audio recording and concluded that the conversation consistently centred on connectivity problems. She found repeated references to the line "haak vas", internet failures and Strydom's frustration supported the conclusion that the expression referred to technological difficulties rather than to the consultant.
Judge Christians accepted that evidence for purposes of the interim application. "His version as to what he meant and was referring to when he uttered the impugned statement is inherently plausible and, for purposes of these proceedings, I accept it," the judge said.
The judge added that although the word "bobbejaan" has been used as a deeply offensive racist slur in South Africa, "not every colloquial use of the term bobbejaan carries with it racist connotations". Judge Christians also criticised the reasoning adopted during the independent enquiry.
He said Strydom could ultimately obtain a declaration at trial that the disputed statement did not breach Sanlam's Workplace Harassment Policy. The judge found the enquiry's rejection of his explanation, simply because the expression was not an officially recognised Afrikaans idiom, to be flawed.
Consultant's reaction understandable
Despite accepting Strydom's explanation, Judge Christians stressed that Visagie's reaction was entirely understandable. He said that from her perspective, and given South Africa's history of racism, she could not be criticised for believing the comment referred to her.
The judge noted that comparing people of colour to baboons has long been recognised as deeply offensive, and her interpretation would naturally have been influenced by that history. Even so, the available evidence before the court supported Strydom's explanation that the phrase was not directed at her.
Other allegations proved decisive
Although the court found Strydom had established a prima facie case that the disputed remark did not breach Sanlam's Workplace Harassment Policy, that did not entitle him to the interim relief he sought.
Sanlam had also relied on a 2022 complaint concerning Strydom's treatment of employees during a training session and a later conversation in which he allegedly said service levels had deteriorated since the company had "verkleur", which Sanlam interpreted as meaning after it employed people of colour.
Judge Christians found those allegations had been expressly raised with Strydom before the decision to terminate his contract. However, Strydom omitted the relevant correspondence from his founding papers and chose not to answer either allegation. "The applicant has elected not to deal with the 2022 complaint or the Hagan conversation," the judge said.
The judge concluded that the undisputed allegation that Strydom had said service levels declined after Sanlam "verkleur" appeared racist on its face and could provide an independent legal basis for terminating the contract, even if the "bobbejaan" incident ultimately failed.
Urgent application dismissed
Judge Christians held that Strydom had not established a prima facie right to reinstatement because a trial court could still uphold Sanlam's decision on the alternative grounds.
The court also found that any loss of goodwill or income could be compensated through a damages claim, that clients could potentially be reassigned if Strydom ultimately succeeded, and that requiring Sanlam to continue doing business with someone in whom it had lost trust and confidence would unfairly prejudice the company.
The urgent application was dismissed with costs, including counsel's fees to be taxed on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
