A mother in the North West has found herself embroiled in a legal battle for the past nine years, stemming from an incident in 2015 when her son, then a six-year-old in Grade R, was struck by his teacher with a stick. The mother had sought a staggering R7 million in damages, citing pain, suffering, and future medical expenses, but the court ultimately awarded her R30,000 in compensation.
The case unfolded at the North West High Court in Mafikeng, where Judge President Ronald Hendricks presided. During the proceedings, the mother testified about the traumatic incident which occurred on the afternoon of 4 August 2015. Her son came home with a distressing account, revealing he had been assaulted on the hand using a “knobkierie” by his teacher.
The mother recalled questioning her son about the incident but initially left it at that. However, when she noticed four days later that his hand had turned blue, she took him to the clinic. Despite seeking treatment, his condition did not improve, prompting a subsequent referral to a hospital for further care. In addition to tending to her son’s physical injuries, she reported the incident to the school, evoking concerns about the teacher’s actions.
While no rebuttal was presented by the education department during the trial, expert testimonies painted a grim picture of the child’s situation. An educational psychologist testified that the incident had a profound impact on his emotional development, hindering his academic progress. “He is fearful and does not feel safe,” she said, noting that he could only cite the alphabet rather than form words in writing. The psychologist recommended placement in a special school, emphasising that the incident had negatively affected the child’s future developmental potential.
However, the court took into account that the child had some developmental delays prior to the incident. Judge Hendricks stated that while the psychologist attributed the child’s struggles to the assault, it was clear that his educational hurdles began before that fateful day. An industrial psychologist also weighed in, indicating that the mother’s overbearing nature during consultations raised questions about the child’s ability to express himself candidly.
In determining the case, Judge Hendricks noted the absence of evidence from the MEC, which led to the case leaning heavily on the plaintiff’s assertions. He accepted the mother’s reports regarding the assault, characterising it as a violation of the Schools Act. The judge underscored that while the child did suffer pain and discomfort, he had not sustained serious injuries nor a lasting disability. “He did not lose the use of his hand,” the judge declared, emphasising that the child had successfully progressed through Grade 1 and 2 after the incident. “O’s future is definitely not destined for doom,” he added, highlighting the importance of evaluating the child’s potential without the presumption of lifelong limitations.
Ultimately, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to suggest the child would suffer significant long-term impacts on his earning potential due to the incident, resulting in the awarded damages amounting to R30,000.
