Cacadu v Van Zyl (1/2005) [2005] ZAEQC 3 (21 October 2005)

Cacadu v Van Zyl (1/2005) [2005] ZAEQC 3 (21 October 2005)

The court found that the complainant's evidence, though uncorroborated, was credible and supported by certain aspects of the respondent's own witnesses, particularly John Bauman, who confirmed that the respondent chased the complainant out and gestured for him to leave. The respondent's witnesses were inconsistent and their contradictions undermined their credibility. The respondent's denial was not supported by the probabilities or the evidence as a whole. The utterance constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, and no statutory or constitutional defence was available to justify the conduct. The respondent's...

Citation
[2005] ZAEQC 3
Parties
Applicant: Cacadu, Andile; Respondent: Van Zyl, Paul HS
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Case Number
1/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
The respondent was found to have violated section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act by uttering hate speech.
Judges
M FT Botha
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Racial Vilification
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Racial Vilification

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cacadu, Andile

Applicant

Van Zyl, Paul HS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's utterance constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
  2. 2 Whether any statutory or constitutional defence justified the respondent's conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the complainant, as a single witness, was credible and sufficient to prove the alleged utterance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant's evidence, though uncorroborated, was credible and supported by certain aspects of the respondent's own witnesses, particularly John Bauman, who confirmed that the respondent chased the complainant out and gestured for him to leave. The respondent's witnesses were inconsistent and their contradictions undermined their credibility. The respondent's denial was not supported by the probabilities or the evidence as a whole. The utterance constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, and no statutory or constitutional defence was available to justify the conduct. The respondent's...

Court Disposition

The respondent was found to have violated section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act by uttering hate speech.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent's conduct constituted hate speech in violation of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
  • Remedies and costs for the complainant to be determined separately.