Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
04 March 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Supplied
Prof Tameshnie Deane
Prof Tameshnie Deane, Vice-Dean of Research, Postgraduate Studies and Internationalisation in the UFS Faculty of Law.

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

Prof Antjie Krog speaks on verbalising revulsion and the collusion of men
2015-06-26

From the left are Prof Lucius Botes, UFS: Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities; Prof Helene Strauss, UFS: Department of English; Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, UFS: Trauma, Forgiveness and Reconciliation Studies; Prof Antjie Krog, UCT: Department Afrikaans and Dutch; Dr Buhle Zuma, UCT: Department of Psychology. Both Prof Strauss and Dr Zuma are partners in the Mellon Foundation research project.

“This is one of the bitterest moments I have ever endured. I would rather see my daughter carried away as a corpse than see her raped like this.”

This is one of 32 testimonies that were locked away quietly in 1902. These documents, part of the NC Havenga collection, contain the testimonies of Afrikaner women describing their experiences of sexual assault and rape at the hands of British soldiers during the South African War.

This cluster of affidavits formed the foundation of a public lecture that Prof Antjie Krog delivered at the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Bloemfontein Campus on Tuesday 23 June 2015. The lecture, entitled ‘They Couldn’t Achieve their Goal with Me: Narrating Rape during the South African War’, was the third instalment in the Vice-Chancellor’s Lecture Series on Trauma, Memory, and Representations of the Past. The series is hosted by Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Senior Research Professor in Trauma, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation Studies at the UFS, as part of a five-year research project funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Verbalising revulsion

The testimonies were taken down during the last two months of the war, and “some of the women still had marks and bruises on their bodies as evidence,” Prof Krog said. The victims’ words, on the other hand, struggled to express the story their bodies told.

What are the nouns for that which one sees? What words are permissible in front of men? How does one process revulsion verbally? These are the barriers the victims – raised with Victorian reserve – faced while trying to express their trauma, Prof Krog explained.

The collusion of men

When the war ended, there was a massive drive to reconcile the Boers and the British. “Within this process of letting bygones be bygones,” Prof Krog said, “affidavits of severe violations by white men had no place. Through the collusion of men, prioritising reconciliation between two white male hierarchies, these affidavits were shelved, and, finally, had to suffer an embargo.”

“It is only when South Africa accepted a constitution based on equality and safety from violence,” Prof Krog said, “that the various levels of deeply-rooted brutality, violence, and devastation of men against the vulnerable in society seemed to burst like an evil boil into the open, leaving South African aghast in its toxic suppurations. As if, for many decades, we did not know it was there and multiplied.”

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