Pretoria - A Mooikloof businessman, who conceded to a Pretoria High Court order to immediately return his 12-year-old daughter’s horse, now wants to appeal against the ruling, questioning how a judge can interfere with how he disciplines his daughter.
The child’s parents were divorced last year. As part of the settlement the father undertook to maintain the horse, Whakidi, at stables in Equestria. But, without the knowledge of his daughter, he removed the horse - as punishment - as he felt she was rude to him in an e-mail.
He demanded an apology and said she would feel the consequences if she did not do so. The father felt she did not apologise in time and removed the horse.
The child was bitterly upset, as she has a special bond with the horse. She later apologised to her father for the e-mail.
Judge Jody Kollapen ordered the return of the horse in February, and ruled that the father must pay the legal costs incurred by his former wife, on behalf of the child.
But the judge did not make a finding on the facts of the case as the father had agreed to return the horse. He gave the parties a fatherly talking to and voiced his satisfaction that they had agreed to talk to each other.
The judge made it clear that the fact that he had ordered the horse to be returned should not be considered a victory by either party.
That the father agreed to return the horse showed goodwill on his part to restore the relationship between the parties, he said.
The judge said he was not satisfied that the daughter’s conduct, unacceptable as it was to the father, had justified the drastic action of removing her horse.
But the father’s lawyer told the judge that a father was entitled to impose reasonable measures of discipline in respect of an errant child.
Applying for leave to appeal against the order, the father on Thursday said the court should have dismissed the initial application, as the child - through her mother - had no right to turn to the court because he had disciplined her.
He said the father had a right to discipline his child and the effect of the order was that it interfered with this right. The judge was told that a child could not turn to court if they were unhappy with the (reasonable) discipline meted out by a parent.
Judge Kollapen was told that the effect of his order was not in the best interests of the child. The father also complained that he was left with the legal bill.
Counsel for the mother and child opposed the application. An appeal would be moot. It would not have any consequences as the horse had been handed back, it was argued.
The judge was told that the father had conceded to the order, but now wanted to appeal against it. The legal bill was also minimal as it was not a lengthy application.
The judge agreed the matter was moot and said he never made a finding on fact, as the father had returned the horse. The matters raised were interesting in developing family law, the judge said, but turned it down.
While the Pretoria News decided not to publish the names of the parties, to protect the minor, the mother agreed to have her picture and name printed.
Pretoria News