Strydom v Chiloane (A420/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 234; 2008 (2) SA 247 (T); (2008) 29 ILJ 607 (T) (18 October 2007)

Strydom v Chiloane (A420/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 234; 2008 (2) SA 247 (T); (2008) 29 ILJ 607 (T) (18 October 2007)

The High Court held that the respondent's complaint, although constituting hate speech under PEPUDA, also amounted to racially discriminatory conduct in the workplace, which falls squarely within the ambit of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act. The Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, and the Equality Court should have referred the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of section 20(3) of PEPUDA. The magistrate erred in finding that the Equality Court had jurisdiction. Even if dual jurisdiction were possible, the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction over employment discrimination prevails. The appeal was upheld, the Equality Court's decision set aside, and the...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 234
Parties
Appellant: Morné Strydom; Respondent: Bethuel Chiloane
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Case Number
A420/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Equality Court Jurisdiction Ruling
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Equality Court's jurisdiction ruling set aside; matter referred for transfer to Labour Court; no order as to costs.
Judges
Hartzenberg, Makhafola
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Hate Speech, Racial Discrimination, Jurisdiction, Injuria
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Employment Equity Act Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Hate Speech Racial Discrimination Jurisdiction +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morné Strydom

Appellant

Bethuel Chiloane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Equality Court Jurisdiction Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Equality Court had jurisdiction to hear a complaint of hate speech and racial discrimination between co-employees.
  2. 2 Whether the matter should have been referred to the Labour Court under the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether dual jurisdiction exists between the Equality Court and Labour Court for workplace discrimination claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the respondent's complaint, although constituting hate speech under PEPUDA, also amounted to racially discriminatory conduct in the workplace, which falls squarely within the ambit of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act. The Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, and the Equality Court should have referred the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of section 20(3) of PEPUDA. The magistrate erred in finding that the Equality Court had jurisdiction. Even if dual jurisdiction were possible, the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction over employment discrimination prevails. The appeal was upheld, the Equality Court's decision set aside, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Equality Court's jurisdiction ruling set aside; matter referred for transfer to Labour Court; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The decision of the Equality Court that it had jurisdiction is set aside.