Matuwe v Matuwe and Others (22/2011) [2011] ZANWHC 71 (8 December 2011)

Matuwe v Matuwe and Others (22/2011) [2011] ZANWHC 71 (8 December 2011)

The court held that the applicant, as a cohabitant of the deceased and in a relationship akin to marriage, qualifies for protection under the Domestic Violence Act. The Act's definitions and constitutional principles require a purposive and inclusive interpretation of 'domestic relationship' to cover vulnerable persons in cohabitation. The Magistrate acted within her powers in granting a protection order, as the conduct complained of—harassment and intimidation—falls squarely within the Act's ambit. However, the order granted was inappropriate as it effectively evicted the applicant without due process. The correct approach is to restrain the respondents from harassment and intimidation...

Citation
[2011] ZANWHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Gaafele Paulina Matuwe; Respondent: Lerato Matuwe; Respondent: Sello Matuwe; Respondent: Nthabiseng Matuwe
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2011
Case Number
22/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review of Magistrate's Protection Order
Outcome
Magistrate's order set aside and substituted with a restraining order against the respondents.
Judges
M J Ramagaga, N Gutta
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Cohabitation Rights, Harassment, Executor Duties
Family and Children Civil Procedure Domestic Violence Act Cohabitation Rights Harassment Executor Duties

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaafele Paulina Matuwe

Applicant

Lerato Matuwe

Respondent

Sello Matuwe

Respondent

Nthabiseng Matuwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review of Magistrate's Protection Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant qualifies as having a domestic relationship with the respondents under the Domestic Violence Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate acted within her powers in granting a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act.
  3. 3 Whether the order granted by the Magistrate was appropriate and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, as a cohabitant of the deceased and in a relationship akin to marriage, qualifies for protection under the Domestic Violence Act. The Act's definitions and constitutional principles require a purposive and inclusive interpretation of 'domestic relationship' to cover vulnerable persons in cohabitation. The Magistrate acted within her powers in granting a protection order, as the conduct complained of—harassment and intimidation—falls squarely within the Act's ambit. However, the order granted was inappropriate as it effectively evicted the applicant without due process. The correct approach is to restrain the respondents from harassment and intimidation...

Court Disposition

Magistrate's order set aside and substituted with a restraining order against the respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered not to harass and intimidate the applicant in relation to the estate of their father or at all.
  • The respondents are ordered to refrain from calling at the applicant’s home uninvited or without agreement between the parties.