South Africa Case Law

Horner v Baranov (AR384/22)

Horner v Baranov (AR384/22) [2023] ZAKZPHC 126 (3 November 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR384/22

Judges

Annandale, Mngadi

The court found that the magistrate erred in confirming the interim protection order. The dog bite incident, even on the respondent's version, did not amount to harassment as defined in the Act. The verbal exchange on 19 February 2022, including the statements about karma, was not objectively oppressive or unreasonable and did not reach the threshold required for harassment. The magistrate's approach conflated contextual relevance with a pattern of conduct, and the relief granted extended beyond the facts established. The appeal was upheld and the interim protection order discharged.

Source excerpt

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Harassment Definition
• Objective Test For Harassment

Fisher v Sibisi (A3111/2019)

Fisher v Sibisi (A3111/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 261 (20 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3111/2019

Judges

JT BoltAR, Vally

The High Court set aside a protection order, holding that serving a demand letter with police accompaniment did not amount to harassment under the Act.

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Harassment Definition
• Onus Of Proof
• Reasonableness Of Conduct
• Protection-from-harassment-act
• Harassment