A judgment by Prof Tameshnie Deane, Vice-Dean of Research, Postgraduate Studies and Internationalisation at the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Faculty of Law, has been published in South African Criminal Law Reports (SACLR), in recognition of its groundbreaking contribution to South African domestic violence law.

Prof Deane’s May 2024 judgment in the case GD v NB (2025(1) SACR 179) challenged a restrictive Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) precedent and expanded the interpretation of ‘domestic relationships’ under the Domestic Violence Act. Her ruling has not only reshaped legal understanding but also reinforced the UFS’s commitment to impactful legal scholarship.

South African Criminal Law Reports is a monthly report of criminal law and procedure cases from superior courts in Southern Africa. The cases highlighted in each issue are chosen for their importance to criminal law practitioners.

Challenging established precedents

Prof Deane’s judgment effectively challenged a precedent set by the SCA in Daffy v Daffy (2012), marking a significant shift in legal interpretation under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 (DVA).

The GD v NB case revolves around domestic violence and the issuance of a protection order under the DVA. The appellant (the person who appealed the original court’s decision), who was married to the sister of the respondent (the person who must answer the claims), argued that their relationship did not fall under the domestic relationship criteria for a protection order. This argument relied heavily on the SCA’s decision in Daffy v Daffy, where the court had narrowly defined a ‘domestic relationship’ as being limited to cohabitation or close familial ties. In the Daffy case, two brothers were denied protection under the DVA, as their strained business relationship was deemed insufficient to fall under the scope of domestic violence protections.

Expanding the definition of domestic relationships

Prof Deane, however, disagreed with the restrictive interpretation applied in that case. “I concluded that this constrictive interpretation of a ‘domestic relationship’ seemingly ignores the intended aims of the DVA,” she explained. In her judgment, she argued that the DVA was intended to offer protection in a wide range of domestic relationships, and that the previous ruling failed to consider the evolving dynamics of modern familial ties.

By drawing on the broader, evolving understanding of domestic violence, Prof Deane expanded the definition of a “domestic relationship” to include relationships based on familial obligations, even where they may not involve cohabitation or direct consanguinity (direct blood relation). She cited specific details in the GD v NB case where the appellant and respondent were involved in the care of the respondent’s mother. “The relationship between the appellant and respondent extends beyond business matters to include familial obligations,” she noted. The ruling in GD v NB granted the appellant a protection order, acknowledging that their relationship met the broader definition of domestic violence protection under the DVA.

Adapting the law to contemporary realities

Her judgment reinforced that domestic violence can occur in diverse familial structures and that protection under the DVA should not be limited by narrow definitions. “Society is constantly changing, and the law must adapt accordingly to ensure relevance and that the widest possible protections are afforded to those in a wide range of domestic relationships,” Prof Deane emphasised. Her judgment serves as a response to South Africa’s high rates of domestic violence, ensuring that the law accommodates and responds to the diverse situations in which domestic violence occurs.

This landmark ruling contributes significantly to the ongoing development of South African law, furthering the protection of domestic violence victims and ensuring that the DVA is applied in a way that reflects the realities of contemporary society. Prof Deane’s decision highlights the importance of the law adapting to social changes, offering broader protection and safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals within complex and varied domestic environments. This judgment also positions the UFS as a leader in advancing legal thought and contributing meaningfully to the evolution of South African law.