- A man withdrew his protection order application against his former partner’s daughter in open court, sharing his experience rather than seeking further relief.
- He told the magistrate that four years of litigation had left him believing the system had failed to protect his property, dignity and safety.
- His statements reflected his account to the court and were not determined at the withdrawal hearing.
What began as a routine protection order hearing became a deeply personal account of one man’s frustration with the justice system.
Standing before the magistrate, the applicant asked for his case against his former partner’s daughter to be withdrawn and struck off the roll. He stressed that his decision was not a personal criticism of the magistrate, nor an attack on the court’s integrity, but the result of what he described as four years of emotional, financial, and legal exhaustion.
“I am here to ask that this matter be dismissed and struck off the roll,” he told the court. “I respect the institution. But I hope to explain why I believe it is a waste of the court’s time and mine to continue.”
The man told the court his experience extended beyond his own circumstances. “I am not alone. I am a million in one man,” he said, arguing that many men seeking protection in gender-based violence-related matters feel unheard.
He described himself as a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and apologised in advance if his remarks offended, insisting they were motivated by trauma rather than malice.
Four years locked out of his own home
At the centre of the earlier dispute was a house in Richwood, which he said he solely owned. According to his account, he had been unable to live there for four years despite court rulings that he said entitled him to return.
He alleged that repeated attempts to regain access, including visits accompanied by police officers, ended with him being refused entry while no action was taken against those preventing his access. “The law ruled that I am allowed to return to my house,” he said. “I have gone back under police escort but was blatantly refused access. The police did nothing.”
He further alleged that his presence at the property was repeatedly reported as harassment or intimidation, leaving him feeling criminalised while trying to enter his own home. These allegations were made by the applicant during his address and were not adjudicated during the withdrawal proceedings.
‘The court has not helped’
Explaining why he no longer wished to pursue the protection order, the applicant said he had lost confidence that the hearing would deliver meaningful relief.
He told the magistrate he believed the courts were more inclined to protect women and children than men, particularly in domestic disputes, and questioned whether a man seeking protection in his own home could realistically expect justice.
“I feel that the court is biased to protect women and children at the expense of men,” he said. His remarks represent his personal opinion and do not reflect any judicial finding of institutional bias.
Property, dignity and financial burden
The applicant said the prolonged dispute had stripped him of his property rights, dignity and financial security. He alleged that he continued paying the costs associated with the property while living elsewhere, with municipal rates now approaching R200 000 in arrears. At the same time, he said he had to pay rent for alternative accommodation.
“They stay at the house as freeloaders who enjoy eating my blood, sweat and tears,” he told the court. He also described the situation as a “recipe for conflict and violence”, but said he had consistently chosen restraint rather than taking the law into his own hands.
An unwilling seller
The man revealed that his former partner had made an offer to purchase the house. He told the court she wanted to buy it for 50% of its market value, a proposal he said he accepted reluctantly for the sake of their son having a stable home.
He maintained that agreeing to sell was not a reflection of justice being done, but a decision to end years of conflict and rebuild his life. “There comes a time in the life of a non-violent man who abides by the law to choose his peace of mind,” he said. “That crucial moment has arrived for me.”
Choosing peace over another court battle
As he concluded, the applicant said the withdrawal marked the end of one chapter rather than the resolution of his grievances. “I wish to withdraw the case so that I can move on to rebuild my life and create a new future,” he said.
He thanked the magistrate for allowing him to speak honestly, ending a hearing that became less about a protection order and more about one man’s belief that four years of litigation had cost him far more than a legal dispute.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
