Pretoria - The fact that the City of Matlosana blamed a librarian for being brutally raped while on duty at one of its community libraries was offensive, bizarre and deeply insensitive towards the woman.
According to three judges from the high court in Pretoria, the woman must have suffered unimaginable trauma as a result of the rape.
To make matters worse, her bid to sue her employer for damages resulted in her being out of pocket as she was saddled with a hefty legal bill. The victim sued the city for damages (no amount given) after she was raped at 9am in July 2008 while on duty at the library.
While at first denying the rape ever took place, the City later said she was to blame, as she had to take steps to ensure her own safety. According to the city, she was negligent in not avoiding the attack. The city said it could not have foreseen the incident. But the victim blamed her employer for the incident, as she had time and again complained about the unsafe working environment.
Since the beginning of 2002, she had reported incidents of crime at the library including workers being mugged, assaulted, threatened as well as various burglaries.
In September 2002 someone attempted to rape her and she continued pleading with her employer to improve the security measures.
Her requests fell on deaf ears until she was raped in July 2008.
She instituted damages against her employer, claiming the incident was caused by the gross negligence of the city, as it knew the premises was a safety risk yet it did nothing to improve things.
Her employer, up to nearly the eve of the trial, simply denied that the rape ever took place. But the police docket opened after she had laid a complaint, argued the rape did, in fact, take place.
The city, in an about-turn, then admitted the rape, but told the court that due to the assault and rape at work, this was “an occupational injury” for which damages would be claimed in terms of the Compensation Act.
The victim, on the advice of her lawyer, then withdrew her claim. But she was saddled with a hefty legal bill for the fruitless court application and had to also pay the city’s legal costs. The court at the time argued that as she was unsuccessful in her litigation, she had to foot the bill. She took this decision on appeal and three judges ruled in her favour.
Judge Ronel Tolmay, in a written judgment, said the court, in slapping her with the bill, did not take the circumstances of this matter into consideration. The court also frowned upon the fact that her rape ordeal was labelled as an injury on duty, as the incident was not “an accident” as contemplated in the Compensation Act.
In deciding on the costs order against the victim, Judge Tolmay said she was a vulnerable member of society who was raped at her place of employment. This had happened after she warned them of the unsafe working conditions.
On the other hand, the judge said, there was an employer who is duty-bound to provide a safe working environment. The city has the public purse available to finance litigation, while the victim is a librarian whose financial resources must be limited, the judge said.
She added an order that the survivor had to pay the legal costs under these circumstances would be a further violation of a vulnerable member of society who has already suffered the most unspeakable violation of her bodily integrity.
The court ordered the city had to foot the legal bill.
Pretoria News