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

Judge Albie Sachs and Candice Mama discuss traumas of the past and forgiveness in the present
2015-08-05

 

Judge Albie Sachs embraces Candice Mama for her courage in confronting Eugene de Kock, who killed her father.

Two generations. Two stories of triumph. Two South Africans who have displayed immense courage.

Public Dialogue on Trauma, Memory, and Representations of the Past

Judge Albie Sachs and Candice Mama exchanged their experiences of past trauma and subsequent transformation in a public conversation. The event was co-hosted by Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela and The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in Cape Town on Thursday 30 July 2015.

The event was the first instalment in a series entitled Public Dialogue on Trauma, Memory, and Representations of the Past. The theme of the discussion was ‘Intergenerational Dialogue on Trauma and Healing’.

"The aim of these public dialogue events we are co-hosting with IJR is to place the issues of trauma and memory, and the strategies that individuals and communities use to heal, in the public sphere," Prof Gobodo-Madikizela, Senior Research Professor in Trauma, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation Studies at the University of the Free State (UFS) said.

Judge Albie Sachs and Candice Mama in conversation

Former Constitutional Court Judge, Albie Sachs, talked about his participation in South Africa’s liberation struggle, the loss of his right arm in an assassination attempt, and meeting the man responsible – Henri van der Westhuizen. Despite years of exile and extended periods of solitary confinement, Judge Sachs maintains that “we need to acknowledge our history, not be trapped by it.” Judge Sachs also remarked, though, that “we’re seeing too much lamentation, not enough activation.” In a heartrending gesture, Judge Sachs embraced Candice Mama in a hug for her courage in confronting Eugene de Kock, who killed her father.

How poignant then, when Mama said, “I wanted to embrace the brokenness within him,” when she spoke about her meeting with De Kock. By the time I met with Eugene, I could meet him as a human being, not as a villain.” Mama believes that forgiving someone translates into an investment in the person you are forgiving and in your own sanity. She also emphasised the importance of dialogue to move our country forward: “When we share our stories with each other authentically, walls break down.”

This is a stance that Prof Gobodo-Madikizela supports strongly: “When we listen to one another, something unexpected emerges; we encounter the human in each other,” she said. “When we listen with open hearts to each other, we see and experience each other’s humanity.”

Building a bridge between research and society

Referring to the research aspect of the event, Prof Gobodo-Madikizela said that, "in establishing the series of public dialogue events, our vision is to create a bridge between scholarly research and the community at large, on the one hand, and a visual conscience of society, on the other." The UFS is collaborating with the IJR on this research project, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The endeavour is led by Prof Gobodo-Madikizela, who also serves as Board Member of the IJR.

 

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