Moos v Makgoba (A238/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 359 (25 May 2022)

Moos v Makgoba (A238/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 359 (25 May 2022)

The court held that the appellant failed to establish harassment as defined by the Protection from Harassment Act. The test for harm is objective, not subjective, and the appellant's evidence did not demonstrate that the respondent's conduct caused harm or inspired a reasonable belief of harm. The alleged conduct, such as placing a bucket under the tap and blocking entrances, may have upset the appellant but did not meet the threshold for harm required by the Act. The court emphasized that legislation must be applied equally and objectively, and a subjective interpretation would undermine the purpose of the Act. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not prove harassment on a...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 359
Parties
Appellant: J Moos; Respondent: F Makgoba
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Case Number
A238/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Dismissal of Protection Order Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
T.J Raulinga, S.M Mfenyana
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment Act, Objective Vs Subjective Test, Definition of Harassment, Burden of Proof, Domestic Disputes
Civil Procedure Family and Children Protection From Harassment Act Objective Vs Subjective Test Definition of Harassment Burden of Proof Domestic Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Moos

Appellant

F Makgoba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Dismissal of Protection Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established harassment as defined under the Protection from Harassment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the test for harm under the Act is objective or subjective.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's evidence demonstrated harm or reasonable belief of harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to establish harassment as defined by the Protection from Harassment Act. The test for harm is objective, not subjective, and the appellant's evidence did not demonstrate that the respondent's conduct caused harm or inspired a reasonable belief of harm. The alleged conduct, such as placing a bucket under the tap and blocking entrances, may have upset the appellant but did not meet the threshold for harm required by the Act. The court emphasized that legislation must be applied equally and objectively, and a subjective interpretation would undermine the purpose of the Act. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not prove harassment on a...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.