Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Judgment by UFS’s Prof Tameshnie Deane challenges Supreme Court precedent in landmark domestic violence case

04 March 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Supplied

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.

News Archive

The failure of the law

2004-06-04

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept