Women and Justice: Keywords

Domestic Case Law

Dlanjwa v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Property and inheritance rights

The appellant was shot by her husband, who subsequently committed suicide. Her husband was employed by the South African Police Service, so she sued the Minister of Safety and Security for general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of support arising from her injuries and the deceased’s suicide. She also sued for loss of support on behalf of her infant triplets with the deceased. The appellant alleged that the shooting and suicide were caused by, inter alia, the negligence of the station commander and/or certain police officials. The appellant claimed that these police officers failed to (a) dispossess the deceased of the firearm, (b) initiate disciplinary steps against him, and (c) have him criminally charged despite her previous requests and their knowledge that the deceased abused alcohol, had a violent temper and suicidal tendencies, had assaulted her, pointed a firearm at her and threatened to shoot her and thereafter kill himself, which led her to obtain a protection order against him under the Domestic Violence Act 1998. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that: (a) the police had a legal duty to investigate the appellant’s complaints once she reported that she feared for her safety; (b) the police negligently breached that duty by failing to take measures to protect the appellant from being injured by the deceased (and prevent the deceased from killing himself); and (c) the appellant had established wrongfulness on the part of the police due to the causal connection established between the police’s negligent breach of duty and the harm suffered by the appellant. The court therefore upheld the appeal.

Die appèllant is deur haar man geskiet waarna hy selfmoord gepleeg het. Haar man het vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens gewerk daarvolgens het sy die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit gedagvaar vir algemene skadevergoeding, mediese uitgawes, verlies van verdienste, en die verlies van ondersteuning wat voortspruit uit haar beserings en die oorledene se selfmoord. Die appèllant beweer dat die skietery en selfmoord veroorsaak is deur, onder andere, die nalatigheid van die stasiebevelvoerder en/of sekere polisiebeamptes. Die appèllant beweer dat diè polisiebeamptes versuim het om (a) die oorledene se vuurwapen te verwyder, (b) dissiplinêre stappe teen hom te inisieer, en (c) om hom strafregtelik aan te kla ten spyte van haar vorige versoeke en hul kennis dat die oorledene alkohol misbruik het, 'n gewelddadige humeur het en selfmoordneigings gehad het, haar aangerand het, 'n vuurwapen op haar gerig het, en haar gedreig het dat hy haar gaan skiet en daarna selfmoord pleeg, wat daartoe gelei het om 'n beskermingsbevel teen hom onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 te verkry. Die Appèlhof het bevind dat: (a) die polisie 'n wettige plig gehad het om die appèllant se klagtes te ondersoek nadat sy berig het dat sy vir haar veiligheid gevrees het; (b) die polisie was nalatig was deur hul plig ter versuiming om maatreëls te tref om die appèllant te beskerm teen die oorledene (en om te verhoed dat die oorledene selfmoord pleeg); en (c) die appèllant het die onregmatigheid aan die kant van die polisie bewys as gevolg van die verband tussen die polisie se nalatige pligssversuim en die skade wat die appèllant gely het. Die hof het die appèl dus goedgekeur.

Gumede v. President of the Republic of South Africa & Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitutionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2008)

Divorce and dissolution of marriage, Gender discrimination, International law, Property and inheritance rights

Mrs. and Mr. Gumede, both domiciled in KwaZulu-Natal, entered into a monogamous customary marriage in 1968 and four children were born during their marriage. Because she was forbidden by her husband to take up employment, Mrs. Gumede never worked and could not contribute to the accumulation of the family’s estate, which included two family homes. She was always the primary caregiver of the children. After forty years, the marriage broke down irretrievably. Mrs. Gumede had no family and was dependent for financial support upon her children and her old-age pension. In 2003, Mr. Gumede instituted divorce proceedings before the Divorce Court. Mrs. Gumede also approached the High Court and obtained an order invalidating the discriminatory legislative provisions on which the Divorce Court could rely. The Constitutional Court subsequently was approached by the Minister of Home Affairs and the KwaZulu-Natal Member of the Executive Council for Traditional Leaders and Local Government Affairs who resisted the order, for the reevaluation of the order of the High Court declaring constitutionally invalid certain sections of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, of the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law 16 of 1985 and certain sections of the Natal Code of Zulu Law (Proc R155 of 1987), which regulate the proprietary consequences of customary marriages. In a lengthy judgment, the Constitutional Court took great pains to explain that any distinction between the consequences of customary marriages entered into before and after the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act came into operation is discriminatory, inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid. The Constitutional Court noted the international instruments that South Africa has ratified that prohibit forms of discrimination against women, including CEDAW. It held that the two provisions are patently discriminatory, unfair, and not justifiable. In terms of the judgment, all monogamous customary marriages entered into before the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act came into operation are now ipso facto in community of property, excluding customary marriages which had been terminated by death or by divorce before the date of the judgment. The Constitutional Court further held that the constitutional invalidity of Section 7(1) was limited to monogamous marriages and should not concern polygynous relationships or their proprietary consequences, determining that polygynous marriages should continue to be “regulated by customary law until parliament intervenes.”

Mev. en Mnr. Gumede, beide in KwaZulu-Natal gedomisilieer, het 'n monogame huwelik in 1968 aangegaan en vier kinders is tydens hulle huwelik gebore. Omdat sy deur haar man verbied is om te werk, het Mev. Gumede nog nooit gewerk nie en kon nie bydra tot die bydrae van die familie se boedel nie, wat twee familie-huise ingesluit het. Sy was altyd die primêre versorger van die kinders. Na veertig jaar het die huwelik onherstelbaar verbrokkel. Mev. Gumede het geen familie gehad nie en was afhanklik van finansiële steun van haar kinders en haar pensioen. In 2003 het Mnr. Gumede egskeiding verrigtinge voor die Egskeidingshof ingestel. Mev. Gumede het ook die Hooggeregshof genader en 'n bevel verkry wat die diskriminerende wetgewende bepalings waarop die Egskeidingshof op kon staatmaak, ongeldig maak. Die Konstitusionele Hof is vervolgens deur die Minister van Binnelandse Sake en die KwaZulu-Natal lid van die Uitvoerende Raad vir Tradisionele Leiers en Plaaslikeregeringsake wat die bevel teengestaan het, vir die herevaluering van die bevel van die Hooggeregs Hof wat sekere afdelings van die Wet op die Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike, van die KwaZulu- Wet op die wet op Zoeloe Wetgewing 16 van 1985 en sekere afdelings van die Natalse wet op Zulu regte (B.proc R155 of 1987), wat die gevolge van gebruiklike huwelike reguleer, ongrondwetlik verklaar het. In 'n lang uitspraak het die Konstitusionele Hof baie moeite gedoen om te verduidelik dat enige onderskeid tussen die gevolge van gebruiklike huwelike wat voor en na die inwerkingtreding van die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike huwelike aangegaaan is, diskriminerend, strydig is met die Grondwet en ongeldig is. Die Konstitusionele Hof het kennis geneem van die internasionale instrumente wat Suid-Afrika bekragtig het wat vorme van diskriminasie teen vroue verbied, insluitend CEDAW. Dit het beslis dat die twee bepalings oorwegend patriminerend, onbillik en nie regverdigbaar is nie. Ingevolge die uitspraak is alle monoggame gebruiklike huwelike aangegaan voor die Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike Wet in werking gekom het, tree nou ipso facto binne gemeenskap vangoedere op, uitsluitend gebruiklike huwelike wat beëindig is deur die dood of deur egskeiding voor die datum van die vonnis. Die Konstitusionele Hof het verder bevind dat die grondwetlike ongeldigheid van artikel 7(1) beperk was tot monogame huwelike en behoort nie poligame huwelike of hul eie gevolge te bemoei nie, met die bepaling dat poligame huwelike steeds gereguleer word deur gewoontereg totdat die Parlement ingryp.