In May 2025, the High Court set aside an interim protection order granted in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act, 2011 because the person seeking the order had failed to make a truthful disclosure of the facts and no hearing was given to the person affected.

The applicant in the court proceedings witnessed and recorded a road rage incident and assault by the respondent on a victim. She attempted to report the incident to police but the parties to the assault could not be identified and reporting the incident was impossible. The applicant posted three videos on social media discussing the incident but did not share the video footage. The victim later identified herself to the applicant, and both the applicant and victim attended at a police station to make statements and lay criminal charges against the respondent.

Pursuant to considerable public interest, the applicant was approached by a popular newspaper, which then published two articles clearly identifying the respondent and posting the video footage of the incident on its YouTube page. The video went viral and about a week later, the respondent sought and obtained the interim protection order.

The respondent, when seeking the order, did not disclose that she perpetrated the assault, had been arrested and charged for the assault, that the applicant was a witness for the prosecution and that the applicant was not responsible for publishing her identity until after it was already in the public domain.  

The applicant appeared at the Magistrates’ court on two occasions to challenge the interim order granted and was not afforded a hearing. Instead, the interim order was extended. The applicant sought urgent relief from the court, contending that the interim order had a significant impact on her constitutional rights, specifically the rights to personal liberty and dignity, freedom of expression and the right to be heard in legal proceedings.

The court found that obtaining the order was a clear abuse of court process, resulting in significant infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. It considered the attitude and conduct of the respondent, the costs of litigation and procedural delays experienced by the applicant. The court set aside the interim protection order and expressed its disapproval by awarding costs punitively, on the attorney and client scale.

This case demonstrates the importance of full disclosure by parties when applying for protection orders and the requirement for lower courts to prevent abuse of process and delays in obtaining final orders, even where its specialised courts dealing with domestic violence and harassment may be under-resourced and inefficient.

Watson v Adams and Others (2025/052925) [2025] ZAGPJHC 436 (8 May 2025)