McIntosh v I.R (Appeal) (A18/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1358 (12 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1358 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## McIntosh v I.R (Appeal) (A18/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1358 (12 December 2025) McIntosh v I.R (Appeal) (A18/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1358 (12 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1358.html sino date 12 December 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy FLYNOTES: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Protection order – Harassment – Hostility manifested in multiple confrontations – Directed aggression and threats during two encounters – Accounts were consistent and supported by objective evidence – Aligned with broader context of hostility – Protection order’s two year duration was incorrect – Act mandates a five year order – Appeal dismissed – Cross appeal succeeds only as to duration – Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, s 9(8). REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case Number: A 128/2025 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. DATE: 12 December 2025 SIGNATURE: In the appeal between: DON JAMES DOUGLAS MCINTOSH Appellant and I[...] R[...] Respondent And In the cross-appeal between I[...] R[...] Appellant and DON JAMES DOUGLAS MCINTOSH Respondent JUDGMENT JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J Introduction [1]        At the centre of this appeal is an ongoing acrimonious dispute between the appellant, Don James Douglas McIntosh (“McIntosh”) and R[...] R[...] (“R[...]”), the husband of the respondent, I[...] R[...] (“I[...]”). R[...] conducts the business of a hotel and conference centre on a small holding situated in the East of Pretoria (“the property”). The R[...]s and McIntosh reside on the property. This arrangement has caused a lot of conflict between the two adult males and has sadly spilled over into confrontations between McIntosh, I[...] and the R[...]s minor daughter, J[...]. [2]        The aforesaid confrontations culminated in a protection order that was granted in favour of I[...] and J[...] in the Magistrate’s Court of Tshwane (“the court”). The protection order forms the subject matter of the appeal and cross-appeal. Background [3]        In order to provide context to the facts underlying the protection order, it is necessary to delve into the acrimony between McIntosh and R[...]. R[...] is a director and/or member of various companies, one of which owns the property. This company has been liquidated and McIntosh claims that the liquidated company together with another company in which R[...] has an interest, owe an amount of approximately R 10 000 000, 00 to a trust in which he is a trustee. There is, furthermore, ongoing litigation against other companies in which R[...] has an interest and McIntosh stated that he plays a significant role in the litigation. [4]        The sole reason for applying for the protection order in the court a quo is, according to McIntosh, the significant role he plays as a witness in an enquiry into the affairs of the liquidated company and in the other litigation. McIntosh believes the application is a personal attack, an endeavour to put him in a bad light and to manipulate the litigation. According to McIntosh, R[...] verbally intimidates and curses him and has made crude gestures towards McIntosh’s wife. R[...]’s behaviour in this regard clearly infuriates McIntosh. [5]        R[...], on the other hand, has previously accused McIntosh of fraud and opened a criminal case against him during on 2 March 2023. R[...] also accused McIntosh of assault and opened another criminal case against McIntosh on 31 July 2023. [6]        It is against the aforesaid background that the confrontations have given rise to the protection order. The protection order was granted in favour of J[...] and I[...]. J[...] incidents [7]        Prior to discussing the J[...] incidents, it is necessary to introduce two further role players, to wit; J[...]’s dog, Milou, a wirehair fox terrier who weighs approximately 6 kg and is 40 cm tall, and Zara, a Belgian Malinois which is much bigger than Milou and belongs to McIntosh. On all accounts Milou roams freely on the property, whereas McIntosh’s residence is fenced in and Zara is kept on leash during walks on the property. [8]        On 5 September 2024 at approximately 6:40 J[...] was on her way to school and stood in front of the garage on their premises. McIntosh, whose residence is opposite the R[...]’s residence, was standing in the road outside his yard. Jemma stated that Milou sometimes travels with her to school and that he was excited at the prospects of the trip. Whilst in this joyous mood, Milou run up the entrance way and barked at Zara and McIntosh’s three other dogs, that were inside the yard. J[...] insists the Milou was not aggressive but in an excited and happy mood. McIntosh’s dogs were, however, aggressive and barked ferociously at Milou. [9]        J[...] was of the view that Milou was in imminent danger and run towards Milou. McIntosh stood in front of his gate with the gate remote in his hand. According to J[...], McIntosh was red in his face, and his dogs were barking out of control. It sounded to J[...] as if they were ready to attack. To her horror McIntosh shouted that he was going to let his dogs out to attack her “ stupid ” dog. [10]      J[...], being understandably petrified, grabbed Milou and run back to her house. Whilst running, McIntosh yelled at J[...] that she needs to keep her dog under control otherwise he is going to teach Milou a lesson. Once at home, J[...] burst into tears and told her mother what had transpired. [11]      McIntosh’s version of events differs somewhat. According to McIntosh, Milou was trying to attack his dogs through the fence. McIntosh emphasised that it was not the first time that Milou has run up to his fence and tried to attack his dogs. The fact that Milou continuously roams free on the property, is not under control and continuously causes trouble, according to McIntosh, is clearly a source of tremendous irritation to McIntosh. McIntosh added that he was on various occasions in the past afraid that his dogs might get out and that a fight would ensue between Milou and his dogs. [12]      According to McIntosh, J[...] came to fetch Milou not out of fear but to take him back to her house. McIntosh admitted that he told her to tell her father to restrain Milou and to build a fence or lock Milou away. He denies saying that he will let his dogs attack her “ stupid ” dog and stated that J[...] fabricated this version. On McIntosh’s version, J[...] was perfectly calm, showed him a middle finger and hurled an obscenity at him. [13]      On 8 October 2024 a more serious incident occurred. J[...] was walking home from her mother’s business that is also situated on the property and Milou run ahead of her. She suddenly heard Milou barking frantically and went looking for him. J[...] found Milou in the middle of a passageway with some of McIntosh’s dogs. McIntosh was approximately 6m behind the dogs and had Zara on leash. According to J[...], Zara was straining on his leach and was barking aggressively at Milou. [14]      Milou slowly backed away towards J[...], when McIntosh saw her, he said to her that he is going to teach her “ stupid ” dog a lesson just like her dad and that she and her dad are just as stupid as her dog. J[...] stated that she was shocked by McIntosh’s aggressive and attacking mood and that Milou was barking in fear. McIntosh was steadily approaching and J[...] asked him to leave her and her dog alone. The next moment one of McIntosh’s dogs, a Collie-like dog, run past J[...] and started to attack Milou. [15]      J[...] was frantically trying to get Milou away from the dog and she shouted at the dog to stop. The dog retreated. Zara then ran towards J[...] and Milou. All chaos broke loose and Zara who was still on a leash held by McIntosh, grabbed Milou by the neck and on the front of his body. Zara lifted Milou into the air and viciously started shaking Milou. McIntosh stood by and did nothing to stop the attack. [16]      J[...] was crying hysterically that Zara is going to kill Milou and it is only thereafter that McIntosh came closer and forced Zara’s jaws open, thereby releasing Milou from his grip. According to J[...], McIntosh was still very aggressive and hurled insults at her. McIntosh picked Milou up and hurled him through the air towards J[...]. Milou landed at her feet and when J[...] tried to pick him up, he ran off limping towards her house. J[...] ran home and was for a few hours shaking and crying uncontrollably. [17]      J[...] attached photos of the Milou’s collar that clearly evidences bite marks. A report from Wilgers Animal Hospital stated that Milou had “ obvious bite wounds with penetration marks and blood around the lateral neck and trunk ”. Photos of blood stains at the area of the attack were also attached to J[...]’s affidavit. [18]      J[...] stated that she saw a school psychologist to cope with her feelings of shock and fear. She was at that stage too scared to leave the house. [19]      McIntosh did not agree with J[...]’s version of events. McIntosh stated that he was walking his four dogs, Zara being on a leash, when the other three dogs ran into the passageway presumably chasing rats. He followed his dogs and upon entering the passageway Milou appeared from around the corner. Milou would appear and disappear around the corner, darting each time closer to McIntosh and barking excitedly. [20]      J[...], most probably responding to the noise of the dogs barking, appeared around the corner and McIntosh told her to get her to take control of Milou and to remove him. J[...] shouted at Milou without any success. According to McIntosh, Milou tried to bite his other three dogs, and he told the dogs to leave. McIntosh gave the following account of what happened thereafter: “ 31.  …Obviously Zara was next to me on her leash. So, as stated above I kept telling, and shouting as Milou was being aggressive and J[...] did nothing – she could simply have picked her dog up. My dog Zara, who remained on her leash, was under my control and obviously close to me; literally under my nose. Milou on the other hand, was not obedient, and did not listen to me or to J[...]. 32.   Then, despite Milou having darted away, Milou came back and run right up to me and Zara, closer than the previous run-ups, and attacked Zara, who was right next to me on her leash. Zara predictably responded and caught Milou in her jaws, holding Milou on top of her collar area. Zara remained calm and did not take further action, as she was only subduing an attack. I am prone to nose bleeds, so due to all the excitement, my nose started bleeding. The blood shown in the picture, JAR7, is my blood; not that of Milou. Despite my nose bleed and Milou attacking I nonetheless tried to assist Milou. I then removed Zara’s grip from Milou’s collar area-in the process Milou still tried to bite myself and Zara. I got some small cuts on my fingers, Zara allowed me to remove her grip from Milou; and Milou ran away; as if nothing serious had occurred. J[...] still stood there; did nothing; at no point did she give me assistance; nor did she cry for help.”, [21]      I[...] stated that she heard loud noises at approximately 17:15. She heard J[...] screaming, dogs fighting and clearly heard Milou yelping and crying. McIntosh was shouting and he sounded very aggressive whilst J[...] was crying. The next moment I[...] saw Milou crawling around the corner of the passageway trying to get on his feet. Milou run to their house and he seemed badly injured. [22]      J[...] also came running to the house shaking from shock and crying inconsolably. [23]      Ms Buys, a counselling psychologist at Cornwall Hill College, described J[...]’s reaction to the attack as follows: “ As a result she had been struggling with typical trauma symptoms such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, struggling to sleep as well as an overwhelming sense of fear that something would happen again to her and her family.” I[...] incidents [24]      I[...] stated that during mid-August 2020 she was waiting at St Albans school for her son, L[...], who attended a rowing session with McIntosh’s son. She was standing amongst other parents when McIntosh approached her and accused her, in front of all the parents, that she and R[...] had stolen money from him. I[...] was shocked and speechless as the accusation was completely untrue, very insulting and denegrating. I[...] stated that McIntosh was standing “ indecently ” close to her, staring her up and down and physically towering over her. She experienced his conduct as intimidating. [25]      McIntosh denied that such an incident took place. McIntosh confirmed that his son attended rowing sessions with L[...] and stated that he normally greeted any person, made some small talk and primarily kept to himself. [26]      During the beginning of 2021, McIntosh blocked I[...]’s vehicle whilst she was on the service road leading to the main entrance of the property. McIntosh got out of his car, walked up to the window and shouted at I[...] in a very aggressive manner. I[...] stated that she had already rolled up her window and that she studiously ignored McIntosh’s harassment. McIntosh eventually returned to his vehicle, accelerating his vehicle excessively and drove past her. [27]      McIntosh denied the incident and stated that visitors to the various businesses of the R[...]s frequently block the service road to the main entrance of the property. I[...] and R[...] also have a habit of blocking the service road as the road is too narrow in parts to allow vehicles to pass each other. According to McIntosh, the R[...]s blocked the road “ Perhaps to show dominance or that they are in charge; or perhaps even to wait for a moment to create a dispute as this one .” [28]      I[...], furthermore, referred to incidents of harassment by McIntosh of her staff that are employed in her clothing and accessory business. I[...] was not present during these incidents and McIntosh’s alleged conduct was not directed at her. In the result, the incidents have no bearing on the protection order granted in favour of I[...] and I do not deem it necessary to deal with the incidents. [29]      On 23 January 2023, I[...] was walking towards a water tank on the property when she was accosted by McIntosh. McIntosh started shouting serious allegations regarding R[...], e.g. that R[...] is cheating on her. I[...] felt intensely humiliated and insulted and she deemed McIntosh’s harassment as an endeavour to drive a wedge between her and R[...], to destabilise their relationship and to scupper their effective and cohesive conducting of the legal disputes against him. [30]      McIntosh denied the altercation and stated that he did accost I[...] on another occasion at the water tank. The water tank is a source of animosity between the I[...] and the McIntosh’s, because the pump is not switched off regularly and the tank overflows. McIntosh told I[...] that she is wasting water and asked her when they are going to stop the wasting. According to McIntosh he did not shout at her, and he did not insult her. [31]      On 31 March 2023 I[...] was on the school grounds of Tiger Valley College watching her son play hockey when McIntosh walked up to her vehicle and started insulting her, her business and R[...]. McIntosh told I[...] that SARS is investigating her business and that she should be on the lookout as trouble is heading her way. He kept on calling her Mrs Mongoose, which is the name of her business and I[...] found his taunting highly demeaning and insulting. [32]      I[...] stated McIntosh acted in an aggressive manner and she requested him to leave her alone. McIntosh walked off, only to return in a few minutes. He took out his phone and started making a video recording of I[...] rolling up her window to block out his verbal abuse. [33]      McIntosh denies the incident and states that I[...] had been subpoenaed to appear at the liquidation enquiry of R[...]’s company. According to McIntosh the allegation that he intimidated her with reference to her business’s SARS obligations, is a ploy to obtain a protection order against him which will excuse her and R[...] from participating in the enquiry. [34]      I pause to mention, that the parties filed various supplementary affidavits in which they proceeded to list further incidents. I do not deem it necessary to deal with each and every further incident. [35]      The court found that McIntosh engaged in acts of harassment as defined in s 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act, 17 of 2011 (“the Act”) and granted the protection order in respect of I[...] and J[...] for a period of two years. Grounds of appeal [36]      McIntosh contends that the court erred in finding that I[...] proved on a balance of probabilities that he committed acts of harassment against her and J[...] in circumstances where the facts relied upon by I[...] and J[...] were disputed by him. McIntosh provided a detailed version of what transpired during the incidents that form the subject matter of the protection order and, according to McIntosh, the court a quo erred in not accepting his version. [37]      In the result, the court a quo applied the principles colloquially referred to as the Plascon- Evans principles, incorrectly and erred in granting the protection order. [38]      The principle relied on by MacIntosh, appears in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51 ; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634E to 635C as follows: “ Secondly, the affidavits reveal certain disputes of fact. The appellant nevertheless sought a final interdict, together with ancillary relief, on the papers and without resort to oral evidence. In such a case the general rule was stated by VAN WYK J (with whom DE VILLIERS JP and ROSENOW J concurred) in Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd 1957 (4) SA 234 (C) at 235E - G, to be: "... where there is a dispute as to the facts a final interdict should only be granted in notice of motion proceedings if the facts as stated by the respondents together with the admitted facts in the applicant's affidavits justify such an order... Where it is clear that facts, though not formally admitted, cannot be denied, they must be regarded as admitted. ……. It seems to me, however, that this formulation of the general rule, and particularly the second sentence thereof, requires some clarification and, perhaps, qualification. It is correct that, where in proceedings on notice of motion disputes of fact have arisen on the affidavits, a final order, whether it be an interdict or some other form of relief, may be granted if those facts averred in the applicant's affidavits which have been admitted by the respondent, together with the facts alleged by the respondent, justify such an order. The power of the Court to give such final relief on the papers before it is, however, not confined to such a situation. In certain instances the denial by respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact (see in this regard Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T) at 1163 - 5; Da Mata v Otto NO 1972 (3) SA 858 (A) at 882D - H). If in such a case the respondent has not availed himself of his right to apply for the deponents concerned to be called for cross-examination under Rule 6 (5) (g) of the Uniform Rules of Court (cf Petersen v Cuthbert & Co Ltd 1945 AD 420 at 428; Room Hire case supra at 1164) and the Court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant's factual averment, it may proceed on the basis of the correctness thereof and include this fact among those upon which it determines whether the applicant is entitled to the final relief which he seeks (see eg Rikhoto v East Rand Administration Board and Another 1983 (4) SA 278 (W) at 283E - H). Moreover, there may be exceptions to this general rule, as, for example, where the allegations or denials of the respondent are so far-fetched or clearly untenable that the Court is justified in rejecting them merely on the papers (see the remarks of BOTHA AJA in the Associated South African Bakeries case, supra at 924A).” [39]      In applying the aforesaid principles to the facts herein, the context in which the incidents occurred is important. In his affidavit McIntosh emphasised the fact that Milou was uncontrollable and the fact that he believes that R[...] has stolen money from him. McIntosh made it clear that Milou’s constant roaming off leash is a source of intense irritation to him. Similarly, the fact that R[...] allegedly stole from him is apparently a bitter pill to swallow and causes uncalled for emotional outbursts . [40]      It is therefore telling that the utterances made by McIntosh and his aggressive demeanour as described by J[...] and I[...] correlates with his self-confessed feelings towards Milou and R[...]. It is also noteworthy, that McIntosh does not deny that the incidents referred to by J[...] did occur, he simply has a different version of what transpired during the incidents. In respect of I[...], they were either at the same place at the same time or the conduct that I[...] accuses him of correlates with his issues with R[...] and I[...], for instance the blocking of his vehicle. [41]      Although McIntosh, on his own account, harbours negative feelings insofar as Milou and R[...] is concerned, he nonetheless portrays himself as the perfect example of a calm and collected person that possesses the self-restraint to ignore his feelings and to act reasonable in any conflict situation. His version in respect of the incidents is related in a cold and clinical manner that is devoid of any empathy or sympathy, more particularly insofar as the incident where Milou was seriously injured is concerned. The impression one gets from reading his version is that Milou got what he deserved. [42]      To the contrary, J[...] and I[...]’s distress and the emotional shock their interactions with McIntosh caused them is palpable from their affidavits. The emotional trauma suffered by J[...] as a result of the biting incident is furthermore confirmed by the school psychologist. [43]      Against the aforesaid backdrop, I have no hesitation in finding that J[...] and I[...]’s versions are inherently credible and that the court a quo was correct in accepting their versions. [44]      McIntosh did not deny that his conduct towards J[...] and I[...], on their versions, amounts to harassment as defined in the Act. [45]      In the result, I propose that the appeal be dismissed with costs. Grounds of cross appeal [46]      I[...] submitted that the court erred in not granting a protection order in favour of R[...], L[...] and the employees of her business. I[...] withdrew this ground of appeal at the hearing of the matter [47]      I[...], furthermore, contends that the court a quo erred in granting the interdict for a period of two years, whereas section 9(8) of the Act provides that a protection order remains in force for a period of five years. McIntosh did not oppose this ground of appeal. [48]      Section 9(8) does not confer a discretion on a court to shorten the prescribed five-year period. The relevant part of the section reads as follows: “ remains in force for a period of five years or such further period as the court may determine on good cause shown .” (own emphasis) [49]      In the result, the appeal against the period of the protection order must succeed. [50]      A large portion of the record pertains to the protection order that was applied for on behalf of R[...], L[...] and the employees. The fact that I[...] withdrew the appeal against the court a quo’s finding in this regard has resulted in wasted costs and I can find no reason why I[...] should not be liable for the wasted costs. Scale of counsel’s fees [51]      The appeal does not involve complex legal issues but the vast number of facts that had to be digested and summarised to be able to apply the applicable legal principle correctly does, in my view, justify counsel’s fees on scale C. Order [52]      I propose the following order. 1.         The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fees on Scale C. 2.         The cross-appeal succeeds to the limited extent of the period of the protection order. Paragraph 59 of the court a quo’s judgment dated 6 March 2025 is set aside and the following order is granted: “ 59.     A final Protection Order is hereby granted by this Court. This order will be valid for a period of 5 (five) years until 05/03/2030.” 3.         The appellant in the cross-appeal is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the withdrawal of the cross-appeal. Counsel’s fees on Scale C. JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION I agree. LABUSCHAGNE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION It is so ordered. DATE OF HEARING : 16 October 2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12 December 2025 APPEARANCES Counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the respondent in the cross-appeal: GL Kasselman Instructed by : Couzyn Hertzog and Horak Inc Counsel for the respondent in the appeal and appellant in the cross appeal: C D’Alton Instructed by : Du Pre Le Roux Attorneys sino noindex make_database footer start