Daffy v Daffy (659/2011) [2012] ZASCA 149; [2012] 4 All SA 607 (SCA); 2013 (1) SACR 42 (SCA) (28 September 2012)

Daffy v Daffy (659/2011) [2012] ZASCA 149; [2012] 4 All SA 607 (SCA); 2013 (1) SACR 42 (SCA) (28 September 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mere fact of being siblings does not, in itself, establish a domestic relationship as envisaged by the Domestic Violence Act, particularly where the parties are middle-aged and have not shared a household for many years. The respondent failed to demonstrate any association beyond consanguinity that would qualify him as a complainant under the Act. Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that the appellant had committed or threatened any act of domestic violence. The only incident of attempted violence occurred almost a year prior and was isolated, with no ongoing threat to the respondent's safety, health, or wellbeing. Allegations of economic...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 149
Parties
Appellant: Christopher Redden Daffy; Respondent: Stephen Redden Daffy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Case Number
659/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; protection order set aside.
Judges
Lewis, Van Heerden, Cachalia, Leach, Southwood
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Definition of Domestic Relationship, Protection Order, Appeal Procedure
Family and Children Civil Procedure Domestic Violence Act Definition of Domestic Relationship Protection Order Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Redden Daffy

Appellant

Stephen Redden Daffy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two middle-aged brothers who do not share a common household are in a domestic relationship as defined by the Domestic Violence Act.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of one brother constituted domestic violence as envisaged by the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to a protection order under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mere fact of being siblings does not, in itself, establish a domestic relationship as envisaged by the Domestic Violence Act, particularly where the parties are middle-aged and have not shared a household for many years. The respondent failed to demonstrate any association beyond consanguinity that would qualify him as a complainant under the Act. Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that the appellant had committed or threatened any act of domestic violence. The only incident of attempted violence occurred almost a year prior and was isolated, with no ongoing threat to the respondent's safety, health, or wellbeing. Allegations of economic...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; protection order set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: 'The appeal is dismissed, with costs.'