Gordhan v Malema and Another (EQJHB 5/2019) [2019] ZAEQC 5; 2020 (1) SA 587 (GJ); [2020] 1 All SA 417 (GJ) (31 October 2019)

Gordhan v Malema and Another (EQJHB 5/2019) [2019] ZAEQC 5; 2020 (1) SA 587 (GJ); [2020] 1 All SA 417 (GJ) (31 October 2019)

The court found that the respondent's utterances, while hurtful and aimed at engendering hatred against the applicant, did not contravene section 10 of the Equality Act. The remarks were directed at the applicant personally and not on the basis of any prohibited ground such as race or ethnicity. The references to 'cabal' and 'dog of White Monopoly Capital' were interpreted as political criticism rather than hate speech targeting a protected group. The court held that the Equality Act does not cover vilification based solely on personal attributes not listed as prohibited grounds. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to bring his grievances within the scope of the Equality...

Citation
[2019] ZAEQC 5
Parties
Applicant: Pravin Jamnadas Gordhan; Respondent: Julius Sello Malema; Amicus Curiae: Freedom of Expression Institute
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Case Number
EQJHB 5/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Sutherland
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Equality Act Section 10, Freedom of Expression, Constitutional Interpretation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Equality Act Section 10 Freedom of Expression Constitutional Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pravin Jamnadas Gordhan

Applicant

Julius Sello Malema

Respondent

Freedom of Expression Institute

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's utterances contravened section 10 of the Equality Act as hate speech.
  2. 2 Whether the utterances were based on prohibited grounds such as race or ethnicity.
  3. 3 Whether the utterances targeted the applicant as an individual or as a member of a protected group.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's utterances, while hurtful and aimed at engendering hatred against the applicant, did not contravene section 10 of the Equality Act. The remarks were directed at the applicant personally and not on the basis of any prohibited ground such as race or ethnicity. The references to 'cabal' and 'dog of White Monopoly Capital' were interpreted as political criticism rather than hate speech targeting a protected group. The court held that the Equality Act does not cover vilification based solely on personal attributes not listed as prohibited grounds. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to bring his grievances within the scope of the Equality...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The costs of the interlocutory application shall be borne by the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.