- High Court in Johannesburg dismissed an appeal against a final domestic violence protection order.
- The court found repeated abusive electronic communications amounted to domestic violence under the amended Domestic Violence Act.
- The judges ruled that a parenting dispute, depression and emotional distress did not excuse threatening, degrading and coercive conduct.
Repeated abusive emails, WhatsApp messages and threats exchanged during a child contact dispute can amount to domestic violence, the High Court in Johannesburg has ruled. It dismissed an appeal by a divorced father against a final protection order obtained by his former wife.
Judge SC Mia, with Judge S Mahomed concurring, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the final protection order granted by the Randburg Magistrates' Court. The judges made no order as to costs because of the parties' continuing co-parenting relationship.
Parenting dispute spiralled into court battle
The former couple divorced several years ago, with their settlement agreement regulating the father's contact with their children. However, disagreements over holiday arrangements and parenting schedules escalated into a barrage of emails, WhatsApp messages and telephone calls.
The former wife obtained an interim protection order after alleging that her former husband repeatedly harassed, intimidated and emotionally abused her. She said she feared he would continue threatening her and her family and described him as irrational, unstable and unpredictable.
The divorced father denied committing domestic violence. He argued that the proceedings arose from an ongoing dispute over the interpretation of the divorce settlement agreement and his contact rights with the children. According to him, the communications reflected a parenting dispute rather than domestic abuse.
Messages crossed the legal line
Judge Mia said the Domestic Violence Act, as amended in 2023, protects against far more than physical violence. Emotional, verbal and psychological abuse, harassment, coercive behaviour, controlling behaviour and economic abuse all fall within the definition of domestic violence.
The judge accepted that not every heated exchange between former spouses amounts to domestic violence and referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in T v T, which drew that distinction. However, the court found this case was different.
Among the communications considered by the court, the divorced father described his former wife as someone who "leeches off persons" and warned that she would "see what was coming".
Judge Mia found the warning was more than an insult because it was followed by the unilateral reduction of maintenance, late maintenance payments and the refusal to pay medical expenses. The court held that this conduct formed part of economic and coercive abuse recognised by the Domestic Violence Act.
The judgment also records repeated insults, demeaning language, threats that the former wife and her family would "learn", references to dying or going to jail, threats of suicide and a sustained stream of emails, WhatsApp messages and telephone calls.
Judge Mia also found that a remark directed at the former wife's father "was purely uttered in malice and was gratuitous violence inflicted to cause distress to the respondent and was completely unnecessary, unwarranted and disproportionate to any practical objective."
The judge concluded that the cumulative effect of the communications distinguished the case from ordinary post-divorce conflict.
"A protection-order application is not abusive merely because it coincides with a contact dispute unless the domestic violence allegations were fabricated or materially exaggerated," Judge Mia said.
Mental health was not a defence
The divorced father relied on medical evidence showing that he suffered from depression, anxiety and emotional distress, arguing that these conditions explained his behaviour.
Judge Mia accepted that the medical evidence placed the conduct in context but rejected the argument that it excused it. "There is no indication that the appellant could not or should not take responsibility for his conduct," the judge said.
The court added that the medical evidence was "contextual rather than exculpatory", meaning it explained the circumstances but did not provide a legal defence to repeated abusive conduct.
Appeal dismissed
Judge Mia said the decisive issue on appeal was not whether the divorced father had sent the communications, because that was largely undisputed. The real question was whether those communications met the legal definition of domestic violence.
The judge found the Randburg Magistrates' Court had correctly concluded that the repeated insults, threats and humiliating communications satisfied the requirements of the Domestic Violence Act.
"I am not persuaded that the court a quo materially misdirected itself," Judge Mia said before concluding that "the appeal is weak on the merits and should be dismissed."
The appeal was dismissed, the final protection order was confirmed, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs in light of their continuing parental relationship.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
