De Lange v Stemela (A715/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 518 (18 August 2017)

De Lange v Stemela (A715/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 518 (18 August 2017)

The court found that there was a material dispute of fact regarding the alleged utterances and assault. The appellant's version was inconsistent with the medical evidence and lacked corroboration from the alleged witness. The respondent's denial was clear and unequivocal, and the use of 'Noted' did not amount to an admission. The dispute could only be resolved through oral evidence, which was not led. The Equality Court was correct in finding that there was no evidence of discrimination, hate speech, or harassment against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 518
Parties
Appellant: Edward De Lange; Respondent: M.S Stemela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Case Number
A715/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Equality Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Millar, N B Mali
Legal Topics
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Hate Speech, Discrimination, Motion Proceedings, Burden of Proof
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Hate Speech Discrimination Motion Proceedings Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward De Lange

Appellant

M.S Stemela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Equality Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed hate speech and unfair discrimination against the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established the alleged utterances and assault on the papers.
  3. 3 Whether the use of the word 'Noted' in affidavits amounts to an admission of allegations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a material dispute of fact regarding the alleged utterances and assault. The appellant's version was inconsistent with the medical evidence and lacked corroboration from the alleged witness. The respondent's denial was clear and unequivocal, and the use of 'Noted' did not amount to an admission. The dispute could only be resolved through oral evidence, which was not led. The Equality Court was correct in finding that there was no evidence of discrimination, hate speech, or harassment against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.