South African National Editors' Forum and Others v Economic Freedom Fighters and Another (90405/18) [2019] ZAEQC 6 (24 October 2019)

South African National Editors' Forum and Others v Economic Freedom Fighters and Another (90405/18) [2019] ZAEQC 6 (24 October 2019)

The court found that the respondents' statements, while offensive and distasteful, did not constitute hate speech under section 10 of the Equality Act or section 16(2) of the Constitution. Journalism or occupation is not an analogous ground for discrimination under the Equality Act, as it is not an immutable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAEQC 6
Parties
Applicant: South African National Editors' Forum; Applicant: Navaranjeni Munusamy; Applicant: Pauli van Wyk; Applicant: Adriaan Jergens Basson; Applicant: Max du Preez; Applicant: Barry Bateman; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Julius Sello Malema
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2019
Case Number
90405/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Molefe
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression, Harassment, Locus Standi, Jurisdiction of Equality Court
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Freedom of Expression Harassment Locus Standi Jurisdiction of Equality Court

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African National Editors' Forum

Applicant

Navaranjeni Munusamy

Applicant

Pauli van Wyk

Applicant

Adriaan Jergens Basson

Applicant

Max du Preez

Applicant

Barry Bateman

Applicant

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Julius Sello Malema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted hate speech under section 10 of the Equality Act.
  2. 2 Whether harassment of journalists by respondents or their supporters breached section 11 of the Equality Act.
  3. 3 Whether journalism or occupation is an analogous ground under the Equality Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' statements, while offensive and distasteful, did not constitute hate speech under section 10 of the Equality Act or section 16(2) of the Constitution. Journalism or occupation is not an analogous ground for discrimination under the Equality Act, as it is not an immutable characteristic. The complainants failed to establish causation between the respondents' conduct and the alleged harm, and vicarious liability for supporters' actions was not applicable. The Equality Court's jurisdiction was limited to prohibited grounds, and the relief sought fell outside its scope. The supporting affidavits were struck out as irrelevant or hearsay. The application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.