Daffy v Daffy

The appellant and respondent were middle‑aged brothers involved in a deteriorating business relationship concerning Core Mobility (Pty) Ltd. After disputes over alleged financial misconduct and the appellant’s dismissal from employment, the respondent obtained an interim protection order against the appellant under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998. The brothers did not share a household and had lived separately for many years. The alleged conduct included verbal threats, one incident where the appellant (while intoxicated) threw a bottle that missed the respondent, and claims of harassment, intimidation, stalking, and economic abuse linked to commercial litigation. The magistrate’s court discharged the interim order, but the High Court overturned that decision and confirmed the protection order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s appeal, with costs, thereby restoring the magistrate’s decision discharging the interim protection order.

The case clarifies the scope of the Domestic Violence Act by confirming that mere blood relationship is insufficient to establish a domestic relationship. It limits the use of domestic violence proceedings in commercial or familial disputes lacking a genuine domestic context and provides guidance on interpreting the Act purposively to avoid absurd results.