Feuding neighbours face off in court

Tensions, temper evident as civil case following alleged assault proceeds

A PAIR of Port Elizabeth neighbours squared off in court yesterday following a bitter feud spanning years.

Jacques Gouws, 50, appeared in court following a civil claim brought by Carel du Preez, 31, for assault and malicious damage to property.

The incident between the neighbours – whose tense relationship was palpable in court – allegedly took place on September 30 2014. Over the years, the men have brought a number of court applications against each other in a bid to resolve the feud.

In September, Du Preez also approached the body corporate of the Neapolis complex in South End, where both men live, to have a poster removed from Gouws’s window which he said constituted hate speech.

The poster read: “Crossdressing moffies are banned from knocking or loitering outside door.

Will call SAPS.” Gouws, who is representing himself, spent a great deal of time yesterday reminding magistrate Nomava Molo that he was a lay person with scant understanding of the law.

Du Preez has lodged a civil claim against Gouws to the tune of R70 000 for the alleged assault and damage to his Toyota Hilux. Du Preez told the court the two men had never had a great relationship and had squabbled often.

On the night of the alleged assault, he said, Gouws had attacked him, causing a laceration to his head and bruising to his forearm and jaw.

The fight came about after Gouws started screaming at him, telling him not to shine his bakkie’s lights into his home. Gouws, in his opening statement, said the claims made by Du Preez were like a beautiful facade in front of a building.

“Once that facade is moved the court will discover that there is no building behind the facade but only a dirty little shack lacking all foundation,” he said.

He also dismissed Du Preez’s claims that blood had been gushing from his wound, which required stitches.

Gouws c ro s s - examined Du Preez, venturing into murky territory when he started questioning him about his relationships When Molo said his question was irrelevant, Gouws worked himself up into a frenzy, claiming Molo was biased.

“Stop protecting the witness. Stop being biased towards the plaintiff. Why are you trying to protect him?

This is not acceptable,” he shouted. Molo immediately called for an adjournment. She returned after an hour and the cross-examination continued.

Gouws also probed Du Preez \’s mental state, claiming that papers from a previous case in the high court had shown he had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, along with other mental illnesses – a claim Du Preez denied.

“I suffered from depression as a result of the attack . . . but after a seven-day medication cycle everything returned to normal, ” Du Preez said. Molo postponed the case, saying the court had run out of time. A continuation date is yet to be decided.