Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021) [2023] ZASCA 1 (13 January 2023)

Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021) [2023] ZASCA 1 (13 January 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the choice of venue for the interview, a changing room adjacent to the ladies' toilets, was not objectively wrongful when assessed against the legal convictions of the community. The room was private, carpeted, and furnished, and did not constitute a toilet or ablution facility. The appellant's agents acted under logistical constraints and had no intention to insult or degrade the respondent. The respondent failed to establish that the conduct was both wrongful and intentional. The high court erred in finding wrongfulness based solely on the venue and in inferring intention from unrelated prior events. Accordingly, the respondent's claim under the...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 1
Parties
Appellant: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Ntombenhle Rulumeni
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 January 2023
Case Number
88/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, East London Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim under the actio iniuriarum dismissed.
Judges
Makgoka, Nicholls, Hughes, Goosen, Salie
Legal Topics
Actio Iniuriarum, Dignity Infringement, Wrongfulness, Intention, Solatium
Delict Actio Iniuriarum Dignity Infringement Wrongfulness Intention Solatium

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Democratic Alliance

Appellant

Ntombenhle Rulumeni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, East London Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interview conducted in a changing room amounted to a wrongful and intentional infringement of the respondent's dignity.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the appellant's agents was objectively wrongful according to societal norms.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's agents acted with the intention to injure the respondent's dignity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the choice of venue for the interview, a changing room adjacent to the ladies' toilets, was not objectively wrongful when assessed against the legal convictions of the community. The room was private, carpeted, and furnished, and did not constitute a toilet or ablution facility. The appellant's agents acted under logistical constraints and had no intention to insult or degrade the respondent. The respondent failed to establish that the conduct was both wrongful and intentional. The high court erred in finding wrongfulness based solely on the venue and in inferring intention from unrelated prior events. Accordingly, the respondent's claim under the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim under the actio iniuriarum dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.
  • Paragraphs (i) and (iii) of the order of the high court are set aside and replaced with the following order: (i) The plaintiff’s claim under the actio iniuriarum is dismissed. (iii) The plaintiff is to pay the costs of this action, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.