Court cancels protection order granted against divorcing wife

The court has discarded the protection order granted to a divorcing man against his wife, whom he accused of causing him psychological harm for going to his place of work. The high court in Johannesburg on Thursday set aside a protection order granted by a district court two years ago in favour of a husband during divorce proceedings. The court said the lower court had erred in granting the order as the man faced no physical harm from his wife who was merely seeking a car she had bought for him.

On November 8 2024 before thedivorce proceedingswere finalised, the husband laid a complaint of domestic violence in the district court and obtained a protection order against his wife at the time. He claimed that she had caused him psychological harm when she went to his place of work to collect a car that was under her name. He said she had bought the vehicle for his use and that she was making all the payments and for which she retained a set of keys.

The court heard that the man was not present at the time of the incident and had left the car in the company parking lot before leaving for Cape Town. The woman informed the company security guards that she was there to collect her car and she was eventually allowed to take the car, read the judgement by Judge James Wilson. A few of the man’s personal items were removed from the car before it was driven away.

[paywall]

Those items were given to the security guards for safe keeping. At the time of theprotection orderapplication, the district court concluded that the woman’s act of removal of the car from her husband’s company parking lot constituted an act of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act and the court also restraining her from going to the man’s workplace without his consent. The district court also restrained the woman from entering his home until the divorce proceedings had been concluded.

The woman appealed the order, and the sole question before the high court was whether her removal of the car from the man’s company parking lot constituted an act of domestic violence under the Act. In determining the matter, Judge Wilson concluded that the district court magistrate simply concluded that what the woman did constituted “emotional and psychological abuse” without pointing to any relevant evidence. Judge Wilson highlighted that while attending at the man’s workplace without his consent is conduct that might count as domestic violence, section 1 of the Act makes it clear that such conduct must, in addition, harm the man, or inspire the reasonable belief that harm may be caused to him.

[/paywall]