T[....] v T[....] (287/2021) [2022] ZASCA 109; 2022 (2) SACR 233 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 93 (SCA) (15 July 2022)

T[....] v T[....] (287/2021) [2022] ZASCA 109; 2022 (2) SACR 233 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 93 (SCA) (15 July 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the SMSes sent by the respondent, though sometimes hostile and written in the context of a bitter divorce, did not amount to repeated insults, ridicule or name-calling as required by the Domestic Violence Act. The communications were sporadic, not persistent or repetitive, and did not constitute a pattern of degrading or humiliating conduct. The appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent committed any act of domestic violence. The application for a protection order was not bona fide and appeared to be an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: D[....] V[....] T[....]; Respondent: B[....] M[....] T[....]
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Case Number
287/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (free State Division, Bloemfontein)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dambuza, Nicholls, Hughes, Smith, Savage
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Protection Order, Emotional Abuse, Harassment, Balance of Probabilities
Family and Children Civil Procedure Domestic Violence Act Protection Order Emotional Abuse Harassment Balance of Probabilities

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

D[....] V[....] T[....]

Appellant

B[....] M[....] T[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (free State Division, Bloemfontein)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contents of the SMSes sent by the respondent constituted repeated insults, ridicule or name-calling amounting to domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent committed an act of domestic violence.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to a protection order against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the SMSes sent by the respondent, though sometimes hostile and written in the context of a bitter divorce, did not amount to repeated insults, ridicule or name-calling as required by the Domestic Violence Act. The communications were sporadic, not persistent or repetitive, and did not constitute a pattern of degrading or humiliating conduct. The appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent committed any act of domestic violence. The application for a protection order was not bona fide and appeared to be an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.