Maqudulela v Gotz (11/2008) [2009] ZAEQC 1 (14 October 2009)

Maqudulela v Gotz (11/2008) [2009] ZAEQC 1 (14 October 2009)

The court found that the applicant's evidence was credible and corroborated by recordings of the conversation. The respondent's denial was inconsistent and unconvincing. The applicant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and the respondent failed to discharge the reverse onus. The court held that the respondent's conduct constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of race, impairing the applicant's human dignity. Relief was warranted under the Equality Act, including compensation and a public apology.

Citation
[2009] ZAEQC 1
Parties
Applicant: Zanele Maqudulela; Respondent: Eva Annelise Gotz
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Case Number
11/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The applicant succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay compensation, costs, interest, and to publish a public apology.
Judges
K M Moleele
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Human Dignity, Burden of Proof, Racial Discrimination
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Unfair Discrimination Human Dignity Burden of Proof Racial Discrimination

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zanele Maqudulela

Applicant

Eva Annelise Gotz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct impaired the applicant's human dignity.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proof under the Equality Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's evidence was credible and corroborated by recordings of the conversation. The respondent's denial was inconsistent and unconvincing. The applicant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and the respondent failed to discharge the reverse onus. The court held that the respondent's conduct constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of race, impairing the applicant's human dignity. Relief was warranted under the Equality Act, including compensation and a public apology.

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay compensation, costs, interest, and to publish a public apology.

Orders

  • The respondent must pay R20,000.00 to the applicant.
  • The respondent must pay the costs of the action, including travelling expenses.