Arpin-Scholtz and Others v HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t.a Medipost Pharmacy and Another (EC2022/007843) [2024] ZAEQC 6 (12 December 2024)

Arpin-Scholtz and Others v HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t.a Medipost Pharmacy and Another (EC2022/007843) [2024] ZAEQC 6 (12 December 2024)

The court found that the utterance 'julle is sif' was made in a private meeting and not communicated to any third party, as required by section 10(1) of PEPUDA and the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Qwelane. The evidence showed the boardroom was soundproof and the door was closed during the meeting,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAEQC 6
Parties
Applicant: Louis de Wet Arpin-Scholtz; Applicant: Willem Johannes Arpin-Scholtz; Applicant: Atlas Ke Nako Chemicals (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t/a Medipost Pharmacy; Respondent: Louis Scheepers
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Case Number
EC2022/007843
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; counterclaim upheld.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Unfair Discrimination, Sexual Orientation, Equality Court Jurisdiction, Damages Claim, Counterclaim
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Unfair Discrimination Sexual Orientation Equality Court Jurisdiction Damages Claim Counterclaim

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis de Wet Arpin-Scholtz

Applicant

Willem Johannes Arpin-Scholtz

Applicant

Atlas Ke Nako Chemicals (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t/a Medipost Pharmacy

Respondent

Louis Scheepers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the utterance 'julle is sif' by the second respondent constitutes hate speech under section 10(1) of PEPUDA.
  2. 2 Whether the utterance amounts to unfair discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation.
  3. 3 Whether the Equality Court has jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the utterance 'julle is sif' was made in a private meeting and not communicated to any third party, as required by section 10(1) of PEPUDA and the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Qwelane. The evidence showed the boardroom was soundproof and the door was closed during the meeting, preventing dissemination. The court held that, even if the words were offensive, they did not amount to hate speech or harassment under the Act, as there was no public communication or incitement of harm. The applicants failed to establish a causal link between the utterance and the non-renewal of the contract, which was due to hygiene failures and lack of a remedial plan. The claims...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; counterclaim upheld.

Orders

  • Claims 1, 2 and 3 of the application are dismissed.
  • The complainants are to pay the respondent R92,974.26 in terms of the counterclaim, jointly and severally, the one paying and the other to be absolved.