Joubert v Adriaanse (16/2006) [2007] ZAEQC 4 (14 May 2007)

Joubert v Adriaanse (16/2006) [2007] ZAEQC 4 (14 May 2007)

The court found that the complainant failed to substantiate her allegations of discrimination on the grounds of race and gender. Her evidence was largely hearsay and contradicted by her own witness. The only other flat owners who received Telkom lines did so without the respondent's involvement, and a White occupant was also refused a line by Telkom without intervention from the Body Corporate, indicating that race was not a consideration. The complainant did not meet the evidentiary requirements of Section 13 of the Equality Act, and her complaint was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion on costs, finding no bad faith and ordering each party to pay its own costs.

Citation
[2007] ZAEQC 4
Parties
Applicant: Navamoney Joubert; Respondent: Glen Adriaanse
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2007
Case Number
16/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
G L Abrahams
Legal Topics
Equality Court Proceedings, Unfair Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Costs Award
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Equality Court Proceedings Unfair Discrimination Burden of Proof Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navamoney Joubert

Applicant

Glen Adriaanse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race and gender in the allocation of Telkom telephone lines.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant was unfairly excluded from receiving a Telkom line due to her being an Indian female.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Section 13 of the Equality Act were met by the complainant's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant failed to substantiate her allegations of discrimination on the grounds of race and gender. Her evidence was largely hearsay and contradicted by her own witness. The only other flat owners who received Telkom lines did so without the respondent's involvement, and a White occupant was also refused a line by Telkom without intervention from the Body Corporate, indicating that race was not a consideration. The complainant did not meet the evidentiary requirements of Section 13 of the Equality Act, and her complaint was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion on costs, finding no bad faith and ordering each party to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The complaint is dismissed as against the respondent in his personal capacity and in his representative capacity.
  • Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.