Former employer to testify on domestic worker's assault allegations

The Randburg Magistrate's Court will on Wednesday hear evidence from a man accused of repeatedly assaulting his former domestic worker.

Kobus De Klerk‚ 47‚ is on trial in the Randburg Magistrate's Court‚ facing a charge of assault for allegedly attacking Siyamthanda Dube.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Dube is alleging that her former employer repeatedly beat her in front of her four-year-old daughter last year.

De Klerk had assaulted her because she had taken her sick daughter to the clinic‚ Dube alleged.

De Klerk’s counsel‚ Lize Nel‚ told the court on Tuesday that he was a good man and that he had treated Dube and her children well while she was his employee.

"Why would he give your children presents for Christmas? Why would he help you prepare fried chicken for your prayer meeting?

"Mr De Klerk is a good man. "

Nel said if Dube had asked her former boss to assist her with her sick child‚ he would have come to her rescue.

"Mr De Klerk's version is probable. If you had asked for help‚ he would have helped you."

On Tuesday De Klerk‚ through his lawyer‚ claimed he would have paid R10‚000 to shut her up and not the R200 she claims he gave her as a bribe.

"He is not a stupid man. He knows it would take more than R200 to keep you quiet‚" said Nel.

"A bribe of R200 after you sustained severe injuries‚ would not have covered it up. He would have gone to draw between R5‚000 and R10‚000. "

Nel asked Dube why she had not sought help when De Klerk had assaulted her on numerous occasions while she worked for him.

Dube had earlier told the court that whenever De Klerk was upset about something she had done around the house‚ he would verbally abuse her.

"He would say I am stupid‚ arrogant and a domkop‚" Dube said.

Nel said Dube would have made a noise about De Klerk's abuse.

"You are not one to keep quiet. You would have complained."

She said De Klerk would deny assaulting or trying to bribe her.

"He has too much to lose. He would have lost his job‚ his medical aid and his children would not be attending the schools they are in‚" Nel argued on De Klerk's behalf.