1

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT ZF MGCAWU UPINGTON

CASE NUMBER

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

VICTOR PUTEHO KANGUMU APPLICANT

AND

JANE TENDAI KANGUMU RESPONDANT

RESPONDENTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS

1. I submit that the applicant has not made out a case of domestic violence against the
respondent.

2. My closing arguments are structured as follows

2.1. Firstly the applicant failed to demonstrate any act of financial, economic or emotional
abuse perpetrated by the respondent against him.

2.2. Secondly the applicant failed to demonstrate how the respondent was stalking him.

2.3 Thirdly it is my submission that this protection order should not be granted as it was
applied for out of revenge and malice. Throughout the hearing the applicant has
demonstrated how it is he who is perpetrating the emotional, financial and economic
abuse against the respondent.

Financial and economic abuse

3. The applicant argues financial and economic abused based on not receiving any financial
support from the respondent.

4. The applicant alleged economic abuse when money was spent on a trip to Gauteng. The
applicant attended the trip to Gauteng with the respondent.

5. He alleges that the funds used in the trip were family funds which he had been denied when
he was going to Namibia for a family funeral.

6. Proof of payment from Namibia and cross border payments from Australia proved that the
funds used during that trip were transferred to the respondent days before the trip was
made. The trip was funded by the respondent’s family members. The applicant failed to
submit any evidence contrary to this.

7. The applicant stated that the respondent earned over R100 000 per month.

8. This misleading information was corrected by evidence of the pay slips submitted by the
respondent. The evidence demonstrated that this was grossly misleading and overstated to
 2

give an impression that the respondent has more money than she actually has. This was
done in an attempt to justify the applicant’s unreasonable financial demands.

9. The applicant claimed that he “seldom” received money from the respondent. However, in
his own written and oral evidence the applicant states that he received money on multiple
occasions from the respondent. Multiple documents on proof of payments made to the
applicant were also submitted to the court.

10. The applicant in his own evidence stated that it is him who has never given money to the
respondent. Even when the applicant was employed he still admits that he NEVER paid for
anything at home or sent any money to the respondent.

11. The Domestic violence Act 116 of 1998 page 3 defines:

“Economic abuse includes a) The unreasonable deprivation of economic or financial

resources to which a complainant in entitled under law or which the complainant requires
out of necessity, including household necessities for the complainant, and mortgage bond
repayments or payment of rent in respect of shared residence.
b) The unreasonable disposal of household effects or other property in which the
complainant has an interest.”

12. The applicant provided no evidence that he was economically abused. There was no
unreasonable deprivation of any necessities.

13. To the contrary he submitted evidence that he did receive money on multiple occasions.
The respondent submitted further evidence that money was given to the applicant on
multiple occasions. He further submitted that throughout the marriage the family, including
himself, has been financially supported solely by the respondent.

14. It cannot be said that on the occasions that money was not available, or sufficient then it
was financial abuse. If that was so then it is the applicant who has been perpetrating
financial abuse on the respondent.
15. The applicant failed to demonstrate any “ unreasonable deprivation of economic or
financial resources”

Emotional and psychological abuse

16. The applicant alleged that he was emotionally abused on multiple occasions.

17. He alleges that he had no access to food because (by his own oral evidence) there was no
one to cook for him. The applicant acknowledged that food was available but he was not
willing to cook for himself because he has a wife.

18. The applicant then alleged that the recipient was still cooking meals and in eating the meals
that the recipient had cooked he could be poisoned.

19. When the recipient then stopped cooking for the applicant he the once again complained
that he was not being provided with food.
 3

20. The recipient kept shifting the goal posts to push his agenda of trying to mislead the court
into believing that he is being abused and has no access to food.

21. The applicant alleged that not receiving a Christmas gift from the children was emotionally
abusive to him. He however admitted that he did receive a gift from the respondent. He
failed to demonstrate how receiving a gift from the respondent was abusive to him given
that he did not get a gift for anyone, not even our daughter.

22. It cannot be said that the respondent is responsible for other people not giving the applicant
any Christmas gifts.

23. One two occasions the 26th of December 2021 and the 1st of January 2022 the applicant
states that he was left at home whilst the rest of the family went to visit friends.

24. He stated that he was in isolation because he tested positive for COVID. It stands to reason
that he was quarantined at home because he was stable.

25. It is the applicant who was in quarantine not the rest of the family. Being left at home as an
adult for a few hours on 2 out of a 10 day quarantine is not abusive.

26. What would be abusive is to keep the whole family home for the whole 10 days when they
were permitted by then COVID regulations to be out and about.

27. The applicant stated that he was not happy when the respondent’s friends were invited on a
holiday to Margate.

28. He also states that he had not committed as to whether he would be home for that holiday.

29. The fact that the applicant still come on holiday with the family meant that his space on the
holiday was not deprived to him.

30. The invited friends occupied extra unoccupied space on the Margate holiday.

31. The applicant failed to explain to the court how the presence of the respondent’s friends
was emotionally abusive to him.

32. The applicant expressed displeasure at what the respondent was talking about during the
trip. He claimed that the respondent spoke about Mr Naidoo the whole trip.

33. The applicant failed to state to the court what it was that the applicant discussed about Mr
Naidoo for a whole 13hr trip.

34. The applicant also failed to explain to the court how the topics discussed during the trip
were offensive or abusive to him.

35. It would thus be reasonable to conclude that the respondent felt uneasy because he felt that
it was his place to decide what the respondent can or cannot talk about.
 4

36. The applicant alleged that he felt constantly emotionally abused during the Margate holiday
siting that there were “vibes” between the respondent and Mr Naidoo.

37. The applicant alleges that the respondent and Mr Naidoo left the resort for hours and he did
not know where they went.

38. The applicant further alleges that when the applicant returned it was only her and Mr
Naidoo in the car.

39. The applicant failed to provide any evidence that it was only the applicant and Mr Naiddoo
that left the resort and came back together and alone.

40. On the contrary GPS location provided to the court, for all three persons who left the resort
together and returned together, showed that there were 2 other people on that outing.

41. The GPS locations of all 3 persons show that we went to the beach then to Spar Margate to
buy a few groceries then back to the resort.

42. Incorrect information was given by the applicant about how many people returned to the
resort in the car on the 8th of January. Some of the people who were at the beach with the
respondent and Mr Naidoo were falsely reported as being at the resort by the applicant.

43. Inaccurate information was given by the applicant to push his agenda of the respondent and
Mr Naidoo being alone for dubious reasons.

44. The applicant produced a photograph to court showing the respondent and Mr Naidoo in a
public pool. He expressed how that picture, which was on Facebook, caused him emotional
trauma.

45. The picture had been posted by Mr Naidoo on Facebook as part of a group of pictures that
showed the rest of the team that went to Margate.

46. The respondent produced to the court the full set of the pictures from that post that showed
the applicant sharing a tube ride with Mr Naidoo at the same Wild Waves pool.

47. The applicant only showed one picture to mislead the court and give the impression that it
was just the respondent and Mr Naidoo who were at wild waves swimming together.

48. The applicant failed to demonstrate to the court how these pictures caused him distress. He
did however demonstrate his controlling behavior towards the respondent.

49. The applicant stated that he felt “humiliated” when the responded was served breakfast in
bed by Mr Naidoo.

50. The applicant failed to explain how this act humiliated him as he admitted during oral
evidence that he was not in a state of undress.
 5

51. He also acknowledged that the door was knocked and the responded had granted
permission for the person knocking to come in.

52. The applicant acknowledged that it was not just Mr Naidoo who was singing Happy Birthday
to the respondent that morning.

53. In cross examination the applicant agreed that Mr Naidoo was holding the tray and all the
other six persons in the flat at that time stood on the doorway to sing.

54. The applicant in his evidence has misled the court by giving the impression that Mr Naidoo
was the only person at the door singing for the respondent.

55. The applicant failed to demonstrate how this was abusive to him. What he did demonstrate
was possessiveness and controlling behavior towards the respondent.

56. The applicant alleges that he was emotionally abused when the respondent did not take a
video of his “Ubuntu act”. (The applicant had gone into a dam at an accident scene in an
attempt to save the occupants of a car that was submerged in the water).

57. The applicant in his own submission claims that if it had been Mr Naidoo in the water then
the respondent would have taken a video.

58. The applicant failed to explain on what grounds he based his assumption that the
respondent would have taken a video if it was Mr Naidoo in the water.

59. The applicant once again failed to demonstrate how not taking a video can be abusive. It is
him who demonstrated once again controlling behavior.

60. In all the allegations that the applicant made about the respondent behavior towards Mr
Naidoo, he failed to substantiate a single allegation. No evidence at all was provided and
only a show of jealousy and controlling behavior towards the respondent was demonstrated.

61. The applicant states 2 occasions on which he requested sex and was “denied”.

62. The applicant cannot expects sex to be given to him whenever he requests it with no
consideration to my periods, state of emotion or illness.

63. The respondent cannot be reasonably expected to be ever ready for sex.

64. The applicant failed to demonstrate that there was any ill intent or intention to deny when
the respondent was unable to have sex with him.

65. The applicant questions the respondent’s family planning choices.

66. The applicant also questions the respondent’s choices on when to have another child.

67. The respondent’s right to sleep with or without their pajamas was interrogated in court by
the applicant.
 6

68. The applicant even ventured into questioning the respondent on why she was wearing a pair
of earrings.

69. The applicant acknowledged that it is him (the applicant who brought the fertility gel).

70. The applicant also acknowledged that the respondent was 45 years old at the time he
suggested another child.

71. The applicant failed to demonstrate to the court how the respondent exercising her right to
integrity and liberty by using contraception, wearing earrings, wearing her pajamas to bed or
turning down his suggestion for her to have another child was abusive to him.

72. When the respondent exercised her liberties it may have caused the applicant emotional
distress because he did not get his own way, but it cannot be deemed abusive.

73. The applicant demonstrated his controlling behavior toward the respondent once again! It is
only his way.

74. An argument can be had that it is the respondent who suffered emotional abuse by being
interrogated on her right not to have another child at the risky age of 45 years. It can also be
argued that having another child at that age would have placed the respondent at great
medical risk.

75. The applicant questioned the respondent on the contents of her will. The applicant felt that
it was well within his rights to have a say on what the respondent can put in her will!

76. The applicant felt psychologically abused because he read a will he was not meant to read
and did not like what was left to him.

77. Demanding to have a say in what the respondent can and cannot do with her half of the
estate is the pinnacle of abuse upon the respondent.

78. It cannot be said that the respondent abused the applicant by making decisions on her half
of her estate.

79. The applicant states that he requested the respondent not to allow Miss Kaahangoro to pick
up Philothea (our daughter) from school.

80. The applicant makes this request with a full knowledge that there is only one functional car
in the household.

81. He then further states that in the event that he is not there the respondent should do so.

82. No mention is made as to whether the respondent is able to do so as work commitments

may not allow.
 7

83. The applicant places conditions with no consideration to the respondent’s needs and
abilities.

84. The applicant takes cognizance of the fact that when he is not available someone else must
collect Philo, but does not consider what should happen when it the respondent who is not
available to pick her up.

85. The applicant provides a backup for himself but objects to the backup having a backup.

86. The applicant fails to explain how it is abusive to him when someone else picks up and drops
off his daughter when the respondent is not able to.

87. The applicant stated that he took the family car in April for his own “personal use “leaving
the same Philothea with no transport to and from school.

88. The applicants conditions are unreasonable and one sided. He failed to demonstrate how
the school drop off arrangement caused him psychological and emotional distress.

89. The applicant in his affidavit states that he requested the respondent not to associate with
certain parties ( Mr Naidoo and Miss Kaahangoro). He requested the respondent not to
involve herself with the said parties.

90. The applicant then states that he cannot say if he brought the police home or not on the 22 nd
of December 2022 to remove Miss Kaahangoro from our home.

91. When a short video showing the presence of said police was showed by the respondent, the
applicant questioned the authenticity of the video.

92. It stands to reason that the applicant was upset when the respondent did not bend to his
request for her not to associate with her friends.

93. He then brought the police in an attempt to intimidate the respondent and her friends for
their continued association. This act was a show of power.

94. The applicant then claims that their presence was psychologically affecting him but cannot
say why.

95. An argument can be made that when the applicant did not get his way he felt traumatized. It
cannot be said then that it is the respondent who caused that trauma as she has a right to
associate with friends of her own choice.

96. The applicant on multiple occasions claimed he had “no access “to the car because he had
no set of keys to himself.

97. The applicant failed to explain how he had no access when the GPS showed that the car was
pinned at his acquaintances homes on multiple occasions.
 8

98. The applicant even expressed to the court that he had to walk to court even though the
recipient was driving to court.

99. The applicant however failed to explain why he could not car share with the recipient. He
however shifted goals again by then joining the recipient in the car after seeing that his
manipulated agenda was not working.

100. The applicant claimed that he wanted the car so that he can pick up the respondent
and drop her off even though he knew that the government car had been withdrawn and
she needed the car to work in Keimoes, Kanoneiland and Kenhardt.

101. It is common knowledge that the respondent is the sole provider for the family.

102. The respondent in her oral evidence stated that the applicant now had his own set
of keys for car. This fact was not questioned by the applicant.

103. The applicant also acknowledged that he had used the said set of keys to remove
the car from the family home in April and has to date not brought it back.

104. The applicant considered himself abused because he had no keys to himself but
does not consider it abuse when he takes the car away completely ALL TO HIMSELF.

105. The applicant has taken the law into his own hands by taking the car ALL for himself
before any judgment has been issued on his application.

106. Once again the applicant is the one who has openly abused the respondent with no
remorse and even admits his abusive acts in court.
107. The applicant alleged “no access “to the house because as he stated under oath he
was not willing to cut his own keys.

108. He admits that he did collect a set of house keys from Mrs Baardman and never
returned them.

109. This then meant he has his own set of keys. A fact that the applicant did not dispute.

110. The applicant did not dispute that he claimed to have lost his house keys.

111. He then falsely alleges that the locks were changed with no evidence whatsoever.

112. The applicant tells untruths about his access in an effort to push his narrative of no
access to the house which is not true.

113. Allegations of no access to DSTV and news were made on many occasions.

114. The applicant did not dispute the fact that there are 2 other decoders and TVs in the
lounge which he can freely access.
 9

115. The applicant goes on to demand that the DSTV should be made available in his
room for his convenience.

116. The applicant was offered an option to stream DSTV. Unlimited Wi-Fi is available. A
fact he did not deny.

117. The applicant refused all the options offered and alleged that the respondent had
switched off the DSTV but he had no proof whatsoever.

118. These allegations were put forward to continue to harass the respondent using the
justice system to do so. The applicant failed to prove that he was denied access to DSTV or
news at any time.

The domestic violence act 116 0f 1998 defined emotional, verbal and psychological abuse as
“”a pattern of degrading or humiliating conduct toward a complainant, including-
a) Repeated insults, ridicule or name calling ;
b) Repeated threats to cause emotional pain; or
c) The repeated exhibition of obsessive possessiveness or jealousy, which is such as to
constitute a serious invasion of the complainant’s privacy, liberty, integrity or security. “

119. The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above was done to him by the
respondent once, let alone repeatedly.

120. What the applicant continuously demonstrated, was himself psychologically and
emotionally abusing the respondent.

Stalking

121. The applicant added allegations of stalking to his abuse case.

122. The applicant alleges that the respondent had no right to a conversation that he had
with Amon on Whatsapp.

123. The respondent demonstrated how the conversation was shared with her by the
other person in the conversation (Amon).

124. The applicant failed to demonstrate how the conversation was acquired by any
illegal means.

125. The applicant then alleged that the respondent had sent Amon to set him up into
admitting that he wanted to kill his family.

126. The respondent was very clear that she did not request Amon to set anyone up.

127. The applicant failed to provide any evidence that the respondent initiated that
conversation to trap the applicant.
 10

128. The applicant further alleged that by receiving his inContact information the
respondent was stalking him.

129. Evidence brought forward by the applicant himself showed that the emails were
sent to the respondent directly from the bank.

130. The applicant then argued that he did not give any consent for the emails to be sent
to the respondent.

131. Emails from the bank provided by the respondent proved that it is the applicant that
gave the bank (FNB) the respondents email address as the inContact notification.

132. The respondent further provided proof that the applicant had been informed of all
these activities on his account less than 48 hours after the respondent received the emails
from the bank.

133. It is not stalking for the respondent to receive emails and inContact information
that the applicant requested to be sent to the respondent.

134. It certainly cannot be stalking if the respondent alerted the applicant to the fact that
she was receiving his information and the applicant chose to do nothing.

135. The Domestic violence act 116 of 1998 defines stalking as:

“...repeatedly following, pursuing, or accosting a complainant”

136. The applicant failed to demonstrate any acts of stalking perpetrated by the
respondent.

The witness: Mrs Nomsa Baardman

137. Mrs Baardman who was the witness brought by the applicant was openly hostile and
openly accused the respondent on issues she had no firsthand knowledge on but based her
utterances on what she had heard from the applicant.

138. Mrs Baardman went to the extent of stating under oath that she is only telling the
court what the applicant told her to say. This was because she could not answer some
questions put forward to her.

139. Mrs Baardman acknowledged that the applicant spent a lot time at her home. On
occasion he spent over 12 consecutive hours there and occasionally left after 10pm.

140. The witness claimed that the applicant spends so much time at her house, she
relates to him as her son.

141. The nature of their relationship (mother and son) by her own version, puts her
objectivity into question. Is it not possible for a mother figure to be objective toward her
son!
 11

142. It must not be forgotten that the applicant raised an objection that his witness (Mrs
Baardman) was disoriented because she could not get her story straight and was
contradicting herself.

143. Mrs Baardman stated that she used to be friends with the respondent, but that we
were no longer friends because she does not like Miss Kaahangoro. As the witness and the
respondent were no longer friends it is possible that she holds animosity towards the
respondent.

144. The witness gave a version full of hearsay fed to her by the applicant. It must be
noted that it is Mrs Baardman who says her version is based on what the applicant told her.

145. Mrs Baardman admits that the respondent raised an objection with her when the
applicant was nominated as an elder.

146. In Mrs Baardmans evidence she admitted that at that time she was a member of the
nominating committee,

147. Being a member of the committee gave her the responsibility to receive any
objections on the nominees that included the applicant. This is a fact she admitted to.

148. As a member of the nominating committee instead of following the correct

channels for an objection raised against a nominated member, she went to (according to her
own version) “tip” the applicant that an objection was raised against him by the respondent.
So much for objectivity.

149. Mrs Baardman showed bias in how she addressed an objection raised against the
applicant at the church. She admitted in her own version that she did not follow the church
protocol. She took an issue brought to her in trust and used it to defend the applicant.

150. It would be reasonable to assume that in the case too Mrs Baardman is twisting
issues to defend the applicant as she previously demostrated.

151. Mrs Boardman’s evidence cannot be accepted as true, without prejudice and factual
because by her own admission she sees the applicant as a son, she has twisted rules for him
before when she was in a place of power. Mrs Baardman has demonstrated bias, lack of
objectivity and used the applicant’s version of events to reach her conclusions without
hearing the respondent’s version.

Abuse of Philothea

152. The applicant alleges that our daughter, Philothea is being emotionally abused by
the respondent.

153. The applicant allege that the respondent speaks to him through the child.
 12

154. The applicant claims that when the respondent is speaking to Philothea, in his
presence, the respondent is in actual fact speaking to him.

155. The applicant failed to explain why he thinks that the respondent is addressing him
and not Philothea.

156. The applicant also failed to explain why, if the respondent had something to say to
him, the respondent would not address him directly.

157. The applicant failed to demonstrate how the conversations the respondent had
with Philo were abusive.

158. It is the applicant who expressed, in his affidavit, that he had a problem with Philo
attending an Easter Egg hunt.

159. The applicant in his oral evidence complained to the court when Philothea had a
play date at our home.

160. It is also the applicant who admitted that he has never given any financial support to
his daughter and has now denied her transport to school.

161. The applicant has provided no evidence of any abuse perpetrated on Philo by the
respondent.

162. It is my submission that it is the applicant who has demonstrated his abuse towards
Philothea by denying her transport and associating with other children (she cannot go to the
hunt and she cannot have a play date).

The protection order

163. The applicant has provide no evidence whatsoever of any abuse perpetrated on him.
Contrary to this it is he who has actually exposed how controlling and abusive he is. He
perceives not getting his way as abuse irrespective of the rights of the respondent.

164. The applicant’s version was riddled with frank lies, untruths and half-truths all
intended to try and tarnish the respondent and give an impression that the respondent is
the abuser.

165. The applicant as an officer of the court is expected to conduct himself truthfully at
all times. The applicant did not conduct himself as an esteemed officer of the court. He was
dishonest, deceitful and malicious.

166. The applicant himself has demonstrated that he did not have a substantive case by
turning to tactics of discrediting the respondent and trying to portray her as a dishonest
person.
167. If the applicant had any substance to his case he would not have had to try and
discredit the respondent but would have focused on the facts of his case.
 13

168. The applicant stated in his own oral evidence that he submitted his application for
protection order on the 13th of May 2022 after he was served with an interim protection
order on the 11 May 2022, which the respondent ( Jane Tendai kangumu) had applied for.
The applicant applied for his own protection order in retaliation.

169. The applicant in his application for protection order has requested:

a) Rent when he moves out: The applicant in his own version has already moved out and has
been living somewhere else for a few months. He still retains a bedroom at the couple’s
residence which he uses when he requires it.
b) The mortgage in Namibia to be paid by the respondent.
c) Pay for his medical expenses. (The applicant is on GEMS medical aid paid for by the
respondent).
d) Pay for the applicant’s relocation, accommodation expenses and household necessities.
e) Respondent to pay for the repairs of his vehicle N14771WB. The applicant has possessed
the family Fortuner registration CNX 619 NC for his sole personal use.

170. The requests made by the applicant in his application for protection order are
abusive and unreasonable.

171. It must not be forgotten that the applicant has also lodged an application for
maintenance to the amount of R45000 per month (Case still ongoing).

172. The applicant failed to demonstrate any acts of domestic violence perpetrated
against him but has proven that it is him who is abusive.

173. The applicant using the justice system, would like to ensure that the respondent is
financially bankrupted for no good reason.

174. The applicant requests that the respondent pay for rent and mortgage on 3
properties including the couple’s home.

175. The applicant who is an advocate of the High court places no responsibility on
himself.

176. No consideration is given as to how his daughter, who is allegedly abused by the
respondent, is to be taken care of.

177. The evidence in its entire totality does not demonstrate that the respondent abused
the applicant.

178. It is my submission that the applicant has failed to demonstrate on the balance of
probability that the recipient committed or is committing acts of domestic violence.
179. To the contrary the applicant has demonstrated to the court that in fact it is him
who is committing the acts of domestic violence.
 14

180. It is my submission that the application for protection order was made with
malicious intent. The protection order should not be granted.

JANE TENDAI KANGUMU

RESPONDENT

14 August 2023