- The High Court has issued a permanent order preventing a parent from coming within 100 metres of Hendrik Louw Primary School and its aftercare centre.
- The court found that the parent carried out a prolonged campaign of intimidation, harassment and threats against the school’s management and staff.
- Because the parent’s actions escalated the conflict, the court ordered him to pay legal costs on the largest scale.
A parent who repeatedly threatened, intimidated and harassed staff at Hendrik Louw Primary School has been permanently barred from approaching its premises.
The High Court in the Western Cape found that his conduct posed an ongoing risk to the institution and its employees. It was acting on an application brought by Hendrik Louw Primary School, its headmaster Jacques Horne, the school’s aftercare facility, the school governing body and teacher Estelle van Jaarsveld.
Judge ED Wille granted a final interdict against the father of a learner at the school. The dispute arose from concerns surrounding the care of the respondent’s five-year-old son, who suffers from Type 1 diabetes and requires ongoing monitoring and assistance while at school.
While the court recognised the child’s medical needs, it found that the case centred on the conduct of the father rather than the care arrangements for the child.
Judge Wille said the proceedings concerned whether the respondent’s behaviour towards the school and its staff justified the continuation of an urgent interim order previously granted against him.
The judge observed that the father had adopted what he described as a regrettable approach in his dealings with the applicants and had repeatedly invoked legal threats and alleged connections within the judiciary.
The judgment records that the father claimed he had consulted several advocates regarding his rights and told school representatives that a judge was his business partner and was assisting him with litigation.
Campaign of intimidation
According to the evidence before the court, the father began what the applicants called a campaign of belittling and intimidating the headmaster and staff from January 2026 onwards.
The court found that the father threatened the headmaster with violence, threatened to have the school closed, intimidated staff members and repeatedly refused to communicate through the school’s lawyers, even after being asked to use appropriate legal channels.
Judge Wille noted that instead, the father sent a series of threatening messages that disrupted both the school and its aftercare centre.
The court also heard that the father once arrived at the school claiming to serve a court order that did not actually exist, and made many complaints to education authorities that the school believed were unfounded and meant to intimidate them.
The judgment noted that the father admitted to several parts of his behaviour. Judge Wille wrote, “The father admits he can be overbearing… The father admits he made serious threats to intimidate; the father admits he harassed the applicants.”
The court also found that the father admitted to showing off and said he meant to put pressure on the applicants.
Court finds no real defence
The father opposed the permanent order, arguing that his behaviour had been misinterpreted. He also complained that the existing restrictions, especially the distance limit, were unfair to him.
Judge Wille did not find these arguments convincing. The court found that the father had not provided any real evidence to justify opposing the final order.
The judge also criticised how the father tried to oppose the application, saying he relied on documents without clearly explaining their relevance. Judge Wille remarked, “This is what the father is trying to do, but it’s not allowed by law.”
The court also rejected claims that there were real disputes over the facts. The judge said, “The father has not done this in this case.”
Looking at the requirements for a final interdict, Judge Wille found that the applicants had shown they had a clear right, that this right was still being violated, and that there was no other effective remedy.
The court agreed that the applicants faced a real risk of further harm from the father’s behaviour, and that more problems were likely if the interim order was lifted. “The applicants have shown it’s reasonable to fear that more harm could come,” Judge Wille wrote.
No alternative remedy
A key factor in the court’s decision was that the father refused to promise he would stop his behaviour. The school’s lawyers asked him several times to give a formal promise to stop, but he refused. Judge Wille found there was nothing to suggest the father would change his behaviour.
Because of these findings, the court ruled that a permanent order was the only real solution. The order permanently bans the father from coming within 100 metres of the school, the aftercare centre, or any of its premises. He is also barred from threatening, harassing, or communicating with the applicants, their staff, employees or officials, whether directly or indirectly.
Punitive costs order
The court also ordered the father to pay punitive legal costs. Judge Wille said the whole case could have been avoided if the father had just promised to stop when asked.
The judge recognised that the school was under financial pressure and that the father’s behaviour justified an order for him to pay all legal costs on the largest scale. The father was therefore ordered to pay all of the school’s legal costs, including their lawyers’ fees.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
