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

Situation on the Bloemfontein Campus, and letter to parents

2016-02-28

Letter to parents from Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS

Statement by Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the University of the Free State (UFS) about the situation on the Bloemfontein Campus

1.   As all of you know, last night we witnessed a really tragic event at Xerox Shimla Park on the Bloemfontein Campus on the occasion of the Varsity Cup rugby match between NMMU (FNB Madibaz) and UFS (FNB Shimlas).
2.   The game started at 18:30 and about 17 minutes into the match, a group of protestors sitting on the north-eastern side of the stadium decided to invade the pitch and disrupt the game in progress.
3.   After a short while, some of the spectators also invaded the field, chasing and brutally beating those protestors whom they caught.
4.   As a university leadership we condemn in the strongest terms possible the vicious attack on the protestors. Nobody, repeat nobody, has the right to take the law into their own hands. While the protests were illegal and disruptive, it did not harm to the physical well-being of the spectators.
5.   The reaction from the group of spectators, however, not only opened old wounds, it trampled, literally and figuratively, on the dignity and humanity of other human beings. This we condemn in no uncertain terms, and no stone will be left unturned to find those who acted so violently on what should have been a beautiful occasion that also brought families and young children together to enjoy an evening of sport.
6.   I cannot over-emphasise our level of disgust and dismay at the behaviour of the spectators. It is NOT what the University of the Free State (UFS) is about and we are working around the clock to gather evidence on the basis of which we will pursue both charges and, in the case of students, also disciplinary action on campus.
7.   At the same time, the invasion of the pitch is also completely unacceptable and we will seek evidence on the basis of which we will act against those who decided to disrupt an official university event.
8.   Clashes between students occurred afterwards on campus and members of the Public Order Policing had to disperse some of them. The situation was stabilised in the early hours of the morning.
9.   Disruption continued this morning (23 February 2016) when students damaged some university buildings, a statue, and broke windows. Additional reinforcements from the South African Police Service were brought in to stabilise the campus. Additional security has also been deployed.

Broader picture
10.   We are very aware of the national crisis on university campuses and the instability currently underway. While the UFS has been largely peaceful, we have not been spared this turmoil, as last night’s events showed.
11.   We are also conscious of the fact that even as we speak, various political formations are vying for position inside the turmoil in this important election year. In fact, part of the difficulty of resolving competing demands is that they come from different political quarters, and change all the time.
12.   We are therefore learning from reliable sources that the Varsity Cup competition is, in fact, a target of national protests in front of a television audience.
13.   And we are aware of the fact that these protests are not only led by students but also by people from outside who have no association with the university. Just as the violent spectators involved on Monday night also included people from outside the university.

The demands
14.   My team has worked around the clock to try to meet the demands of contract workers demanding to be in-sourced. In fact, this weekend past, senior colleagues sat with worker leaders in the township to try to find ways of meeting their demands. We were hoping that such an agreement would be finalised by Monday afternoon (22 February 2016), but on the same Monday morning workers and students were arrested after moving onto Nelson Mandela Avenue, after which the South African Police Service (SAPS) took over as the matter became a public safety concern outside the hands of the university. Since then, it was difficult to return the workers to settle on a possible agreement.
15.   The fact is that the UFS has been in constant negotiation with contract workers to provide our colleagues with a decent wage and certain benefits. In fact, towards the end of last year we raised the minimum wage from R2 500 to R5 000. We were in fact hoping that the continued negotiations would improve that level of compensation even as we looked at a possible plan for insourcing in the future. We made it clear that if we could insource immediately, we would, but that the financial risk to the university was so great that it threatened the jobs of all our staff. Those negotiations were going well, until recently, when without notice the workers broke away and decided to protest on and around campus.
16.   While these negotiations were going on, the Student Representative Council (SRC) on Monday 22 February 2016 also decided to protest. While the vast majority of our 32 000 students were in classes and determined to get an education, a very small group led by the SRC President decided to protest; some invaded the UFS Sasol Library and the computer centre, and with the President eventually made their way to Xerox Shimla Park on which route they confronted the police, interrupted traffic and in fact injured some of our security staff as well as police officials.
17.   The university is definitely proceeding to collect evidence on these illegal and violent acts and will also act firmly against students involved in these protests.

Summary
18.   The events of Monday night represent a major setback for the transformation process at the UFS. While we have made major progress in recent years—from residence integration to a more inclusive language policy to a core curriculum to very successful ‘leadership for change’ interventions for student leaders—we still have a long way to go.
19.   One violent incident on a rugby field and we again see the long road ahead yet to be travelled. As I have often said before, you cannot deeply transform a century-old university and its community overnight. We acknowledge the progress but also the still long and difficult path ahead. We will not give up.
20.   We have 32 000 students on our campuses; the overwhelming majority of them are decent and committed to building bridges over old divides as we have seen over and over again. So many of our students, black and white, have become close and even intimate friends working hard to make this a better campus and ours a better community and country. Like all of us, they are gutted by what they saw on Monday, but the hundreds of messages I received from parents, students, and alumni this past 20 hours or so said one thing—keep on keeping on. And we will.

The Big Read: An assault on transformation (Times Live kolom deur Prof Jonathan Jansen: 25 Februarie 2016)

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