South Africa Case Law

BHGH v GH (041781/2024)

BHGH v GH (041781/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 746 (16 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

041781/2024

Judge

Minnaar

The court found that the allegations of sexual misconduct against the applicant are serious and that the minor child, being under three years old, is particularly vulnerable. The best interests of the child must take precedence over the applicant’s right to contact. The interim protection order, which prohibits contact pending a forensic investigation, is justified given the gravity of the allegations. The applicant’s failure to anticipate the return date of the interim order and clear his name was noted as concerning. The court held that neither reinstatement of contact nor supervised contac…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Interim Protection Order
• Rule 43 Variation
• Supervised Contact

Watson v Adams and Others (2025/052925)

Watson v Adams and Others (2025/052925) [2025] ZAGPJHC 436 (8 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/052925

Judge

Fisher

The court found that the interim protection order was obtained by the first respondent through material non-disclosure and constituted an abuse of process. The respondent failed to disclose her own criminal conduct, the applicant's role as a state witness, and the fact that her identity was publicised by a third party, not the applicant. The applicant was denied a hearing both on anticipation and on the return date, resulting in a significant infringement of her constitutional rights. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders obtained through abuse of process, especially wh…

Source excerpt

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Abuse Of Process
• Freedom Of Expression
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Urgent Relief

K.A.M and Another v S.S.M (1060/25)

K.A.M and Another v S.S.M (1060/25) [2025] ZANWHC 51 (12 March 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1060/25

Judge

Titus

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The delay of seven days in bringing the application was unexplained and amounted to self-created urgency. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would suffer undue hardship if the matter was not heard urgently, as they have access to other vehicles and substantial income. The dispute regarding the Toyota motor vehicle will be determined in the magistrates court on the scheduled return date, where the applicants will have substantial redress. Consequently, the application was not suitabl…

Source excerpt

• Domestic Violence Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Urgency
• Community Of Property
• Striking Off Roll

Pretorius and Another v Du Preez and Another (6468/24)

Pretorius and Another v Du Preez and Another (6468/24) [2024] ZAMPMHC 70 (19 December 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

6468/24

Judge

Malangeni

An urgent nuisance application over barking dogs was struck from the roll because the applicants failed to prove urgency or that ordinary relief would be inadequate.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Nuisance
• Noise Pollution
• Interim Protection Order
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings
• Noise-pollution

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

L.W v K.C.A (A2023-013223)

L.W v K.C.A (A2023-013223) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1154; [2023] 4 All SA 769 (GJ); 2024 (1) SACR 626 (GJ) (13 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2023-013223

Judges

AC Dodson, J Moorcroft

The court found that the respondent, in seeking an interim protection order ex parte, breached his duty of full disclosure by failing to present material facts and relevant communications, including admissions and apologies regarding the alleged sexual assaults. This dishonesty and non-disclosure warranted discharge of the interim protection order and refusal of final relief. On the merits, the appellant's communications to third parties regarding rape allegations, made in good faith and motivated by genuine belief, did not constitute harassment as defined in the Protection from Harassment Ac…

Source excerpt

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Duty Of Full Disclosure
• Gender Based Violence
• Freedom Of Expression
• Interim Protection Order
• Constitutional Interpretation

S.H.G v T.S.P and Others (1622/23P)

S.H.G v T.S.P and Others (1622/23P) [2023] ZAKZDHC 82 (31 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

1622/23P

Judge

WAJ Nicholson

The court dismissed an interlocutory application to reinstate a discharged domestic violence interim order, finding no substantiated bias by the magistrate.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Recusal Of Magistrate
• Rule Nisi
• Costs Punitive
• Bias And Impartiality

C[....] v C[....] (A3084/2019)

C[....] v C[....] (A3084/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 369 (10 December 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3084/2019

Judges

Senyatsi, Noko

High Court appeal confirming a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act after the magistrate wrongly focused on injury severity and relationship status.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Confirmation Of Protection Order
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Appeal Procedure
• Domestic-violence-act

Bhawuli v Mthombeni (2019/37016)

Bhawuli v Mthombeni (2019/37016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 530 (13 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/37016

Judge

F Dippenaar

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the Domestic Violence Act provided an adequate remedy and no prospect of success was shown.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Leave To Appeal
• Alternative Remedy
• Leave-to-appeal
• Domestic-violence-act

K.V v W.V (AR72/2018)

K.V v W.V (AR72/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 61; 2020 (1) SACR 89 (KZP) (13 September 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR72/2018

Judges

Masipa, Chetty

Appeal against a confirmed domestic violence protection order was dismissed. The court held the Act does not require unlawfulness and covers harmful physical conduct.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Interim Protection Order
• Final Interdict
• Self Defence
• Statutory Interpretation
• Domestic-violence-act