Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 32; 2022 (4) SA 141 (WCC) (28 February 2022)
The court found that Clicks Group Limited was not the correct respondent, as the advertisement was published by Clicks Retailers, a separate legal entity. However, given the public apology and corrective actions, the court proceeded to consider the merits. The applicants failed to establish that the original advertisement, as published on the Clicks Retailers website, constituted unfair discrimination under the Equality Act. The court distinguished between the original advertisement and the cropped images circulated on social media, finding that the latter caused the public outcry but were not the responsibility of the respondents. The applicants did not prove that the advertisement...
- Citation
- [2022] ZAWCHC 32
- Parties
- Applicant: Ntombizodwa Cingiswa Baba; Applicant: Langathani Thembelihle Sibanda; Applicant: Lozitla Mahlangu; Applicant: Katlego Menoe; Applicant: Zoleka Radebe; Applicant: Winkey Maluwa; Applicant: Fezeka Mshona; Applicant: Tshepiso Mosidi; Applicant: Khanyisile Hlatshwayo; Applicant: Lesego Motowane; Applicant: Ofentse Mbhuti; Applicant: Bongiwe Badela; Applicant: Siphokazi Zamxaka; Applicant: Nwabisa Phila; Applicant: Zanele Zamxaka; Applicant: Mbali Macu; Applicant: Duduzile Faith Macu; Applicant: Nomonde Aphane; Respondent: Clicks Group Limited; Respondent: Unilever South Africa Proprietary Limited
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2022
- Case Number
- EC 12/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Merits
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- Dolamo
- Legal Topics
- Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Unfair Discrimination, Company Liability, Subsidiarity Principle, Freedom of Expression
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ntombizodwa Cingiswa Baba
Applicant
Langathani Thembelihle Sibanda
Applicant
Lozitla Mahlangu
Applicant
Katlego Menoe
Applicant
Zoleka Radebe
Applicant
Winkey Maluwa
Applicant
Fezeka Mshona
Applicant
Tshepiso Mosidi
Applicant
Khanyisile Hlatshwayo
Applicant
Lesego Motowane
Applicant
Ofentse Mbhuti
Applicant
Bongiwe Badela
Applicant
Siphokazi Zamxaka
Applicant
Nwabisa Phila
Applicant
Zanele Zamxaka
Applicant
Mbali Macu
Applicant
Duduzile Faith Macu
Applicant
Nomonde Aphane
Applicant
Clicks Group Limited
Respondent
Unilever South Africa Proprietary Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Merits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Clicks Group Limited was the correct respondent or whether Clicks Retailers should have been cited.
- 2 Whether the TRESemmé advertisement constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of race under the Equality Act.
- 3 Whether the advertisement or its cropped social media images were the cause of the alleged harm.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Clicks Group Limited was not the correct respondent, as the advertisement was published by Clicks Retailers, a separate legal entity. However, given the public apology and corrective actions, the court proceeded to consider the merits. The applicants failed to establish that the original advertisement, as published on the Clicks Retailers website, constituted unfair discrimination under the Equality Act. The court distinguished between the original advertisement and the cropped images circulated on social media, finding that the latter caused the public outcry but were not the responsibility of the respondents. The applicants did not prove that the advertisement...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment