ZELDA VENTER
THE Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, was faced with a situation where a man claiming to be a “mentor and guide” to a much younger woman obtained an interim restraining order against her father to stop harassing him.
This, while the father claims the older man is paying his drug-addicted daughter for sex.
The man, only identified in court as MMS, earlier obtained an order restraining the father, only identified as HK, and the latter’s partner, VG, from defaming and harassing him.
The purpose of that application was to prevent the publication of any material that might suggest that MMS had paid for sex with HK’s daughter, A, while knowing that the money he paid was funding her drug habit.
MMS also wanted to gag the father from contacting religious groups to which he is affiliated, with the intent to harass or defame him.
An interim order was issued against the father and his partner, and the matter now came before the court to either dismiss or confirm the interim order.
MMS claimed that HK and VG have hounded him over a number of years with entirely false allegations that he had taken a purely sexual interest in A and that he has no real regard for her welfare.
MMS disputes this and describes his interest in A as that of a “mentor and guide.” MMS first met A when HK became his insurance broker.
A was in her mid-thirties at the time, while MMS was in his late sixties.
A has faced significant challenges, having been diagnosed with a form of late-stage liver cancer at the age of twenty. The cancer has been kept at bay with a combination of chemotherapy, surgery, and, most recently, immunotherapy.
A also struggles with drug addiction. Given these challenging family dynamics, MMS described his role in A’s life as that of a placid and non-judgmental friend.
He paints himself as the victim of a relentless, unhinged, and baseless attack on his reputation by HK and VG.
They, however, paint a different picture. HK said A showed him her profile on an internet page advertising escort services. A told him that MMS paid her for sex and that she had sex with MMS weekly.
The father fears she uses this money to pay for drugs.
The father and his partner did not dispute that they have sent a number of incendiary messages to and about MMS, criticising what they say is the unwholesome nature of his relationship with A.
But both maintain that MMS pays A for sex and that A uses that money to fund her drug habit. HK said MMS is an extremely bad influence on A and that the messages are intended to get MMS to leave A alone.
Judge Stuart Wilson noted that in his application for a restraining order, MMS failed to disclose that the father in 2020 already sent him a text message in which he expressed his concerns about his daughter. He simply asked MMS to refrain from giving her any money.
Judge Wilson said the tone of the message is restrained and cannot be described as defamatory or intended to harass or intimidate.
The judge said it is clear that the facts are hotly disputed. On the one hand, MMS denies having sex of a transactional nature with A and paints HK and VG as unreasonably obsessed with his perfectly innocent relationship with A.
The judge dismissed the interim interdict since the facts are in dispute and it is impossible to ascertain on court papers who is right and who is wrong.
He said the father may have legitimate concerns about his daughter.