Amaning and Others v Ackerman (EQ3/2023) [2024] ZAEQC 2 (10 May 2024)

Amaning and Others v Ackerman (EQ3/2023) [2024] ZAEQC 2 (10 May 2024)

The court found that the respondent, Mr Ackerman, used the k word in communications with Mr Wellman on three occasions. These communications, though not widely disseminated, were not within the intimate personal sphere and were sufficiently public to constitute 'communication' under section 10(1) of the Equality Act. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the communications were private and thus protected, holding that the context—a business relationship between two associates—did not attract the highest degree of privacy. The court relied on the purposive interpretation of section 10(1), supported by Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal authority, to conclude that...

Citation
[2024] ZAEQC 2
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Amaning; Applicant: Nicholas Liebmann; Applicant: Garth Wellman; Respondent: Willem Ackerman
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Case Number
EQ3/2023
Procedural Posture
Equality Court Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent's speech is declared unlawful hate speech, discrimination, and harassment. Monetary, remedial, and punitive orders are made against the respondent.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Unlawful Discrimination, Harassment, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Right to Dignity
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Unlawful Discrimination Harassment Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Right to Dignity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Amaning

Applicant

Nicholas Liebmann

Applicant

Garth Wellman

Applicant

Willem Ackerman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equality Court Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of the k word by the respondent in communications with a business associate constitutes hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act.
  2. 2 Whether such communications amount to unlawful discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act.
  3. 3 Whether the communications fall within the protected sphere of private communication or are sufficiently public to be actionable under section 10(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, Mr Ackerman, used the k word in communications with Mr Wellman on three occasions. These communications, though not widely disseminated, were not within the intimate personal sphere and were sufficiently public to constitute 'communication' under section 10(1) of the Equality Act. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the communications were private and thus protected, holding that the context—a business relationship between two associates—did not attract the highest degree of privacy. The court relied on the purposive interpretation of section 10(1), supported by Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal authority, to conclude that...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent's speech is declared unlawful hate speech, discrimination, and harassment. Monetary, remedial, and punitive orders are made against the respondent.

Orders

  • It is declared that Mr Ackerman, on or about 31 January 2018, 23 August 2019, and during or about October 2021 used the k word when speaking to or texting Mr Wellman.
  • It is declared that this speech is unlawful hate speech, amounts to unlawful discrimination against Black people, including Mr Amaning, and constituted unlawful harassment of Mr Wellman.