Khoza v Saeed and Another (07/05) [2006] ZAEQC 2 (24 February 2006)

Khoza v Saeed and Another (07/05) [2006] ZAEQC 2 (24 February 2006)

The court found that the complainant did not establish a prima facie case of hate speech against Mr Saeed, as the evidence did not support the allegation of the offensive telephone call. The complaint against Mr Saeed was dismissed. Regarding Ms Essay, the court was satisfied, based on her own admissions and the evidence, that she referred to the complainant as a pig and, in all probability, used the word 'kaffir'. The complainant's evidence met the prima facie requirement under section 13 of the Act. The court held that Ms Essay's conduct constituted hate speech and awarded damages to the complainant as an appropriate remedy under section 21(2)(d) of the Act.

Citation
[2006] ZAEQC 2
Parties
Applicant: Mr G S Khoza; Respondent: Mr M Saeed; Respondent: Ms R Essay
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Case Number
07/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The complaint against Mr Saeed is dismissed. The complaint against Ms Essay is upheld and damages are awarded to the complainant.
Judges
G L Abrahams
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Burden of Proof, Damages
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Burden of Proof Damages

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr G S Khoza

Applicant

Mr M Saeed

Respondent

Ms R Essay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents committed hate speech against the complainant in contravention of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant discharged the burden of proof under section 13 of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether damages are an appropriate remedy for the proven conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant did not establish a prima facie case of hate speech against Mr Saeed, as the evidence did not support the allegation of the offensive telephone call. The complaint against Mr Saeed was dismissed. Regarding Ms Essay, the court was satisfied, based on her own admissions and the evidence, that she referred to the complainant as a pig and, in all probability, used the word 'kaffir'. The complainant's evidence met the prima facie requirement under section 13 of the Act. The court held that Ms Essay's conduct constituted hate speech and awarded damages to the complainant as an appropriate remedy under section 21(2)(d) of the Act.

Court Disposition

The complaint against Mr Saeed is dismissed. The complaint against Ms Essay is upheld and damages are awarded to the complainant.

Orders

  • Ms Essay is ordered to pay the complainant R3,000.00 in damages.
  • The amount is to be paid to the Clerk of the Equality Court on or before 12h00 on 3 March 2006 and may be uplifted by Mr Khoza at 12h00 on the day.