The Act permits any complainant of sexual harassment to apply for a protection order from a Magistrates’ Court. A protection order, including an interim protection order; may prohibit the respondent from engaging in or attempting to engage in harassment or committing any other act as specified in the protection order. A person who breaches a protection order may be criminally charged and, if found guilty, held liable to a fine or imprisonment.
The Act defines harassment as both sexual and non-sexual.

Examples of non-sexual harassment include, unreasonably:

• Following, watching or accosting; and
• Communication whether verbal, electronic or other.

Sexual harassment includes:

• Unwelcome sexual attention;
• Unwelcome behavior that has the effect of offending, humiliating or intimidating;
• A sexual request with promise of a reward for compliance; and
• A sexual request with threat of reprisal for non-compliance.
If the identity of the harasser is unknown, a protection order may still be applied for. If the court is satisfied that the complainant has or is being harassed it may direct the police to investigate the matter and identify the harasser. If the harassment took place through electronic communication the electronic communication service provider may be directed to provide details of the person harassing the complainant.

Harassment in the Workplace:

As a result of the Protection from Harassment Act it will now be possible for an employee to obtain, in addition to the provisions of the EEA, a protection order against an abusive employer or colleague. Where the complainant and the harasser are employed in same workplace, the employer is obliged to ensure that the harasser complies with the terms of the protection order. The employer may also have regard to the workplaces’ disciplinary code in order to deal with the harasser. If the harassment took place at the workplace the employer may be held vicariously liable for the harassment of the employee. In Grobler v Naspers Bpk en n’ ander [2004] All SA 160 (CC), the court found the employer to be vicariously liable for the conduct of manager who sexually harassed another employee because it had failed to take appropriate action to prevent the harassment. The employer was liable for the resultant damages. It appears the scope of the Act is broad enough that the employer may further be held liable for harassment of an employee by a third party.