South Africa Case Law

Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others (EQ2/19)

Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others (EQ2/19) [2022] ZAEQC 1; [2022] 2 All SA 549 (GJ) (2 March 2022)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

EQ2/19

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

The court found that the comments made by the second and third respondents, which celebrated the deaths of white children and equated their lives to those of animals, constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act as amended by the Constitutional Court. The statements were objectively harmful, promoted racial hatred, and undermined the dignity of the victims and their families, as well as the constitutional project of nation-building. The respondents' defence of freedom of expression was rejected, as such rights do not protect advocacy of racial hatred or speech that incites…

Source excerpt

• Hate Speech
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Freedom Of Expression
• Racial Discrimination
• Damages For Dignity
• Interdict

Maseko and Another v Minister of Police and Another (145/2017)

Maseko and Another v Minister of Police and Another (145/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 815 (20 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

145/2017

Judge

Legodi

High Court held the police unlawfully arrested and detained the plaintiff without reasonable suspicion, awarding damages and dismissing the claim against the DPP.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Damages For Dignity
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights Infringement
• Unlawful-arrest

Minister van Wet en Orde v Wilson en 'n Ander (544/1990)

Minister van Wet en Orde v Wilson en 'n Ander (544/1990) [1992] ZASCA 81; 1992 (3) SA 920 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 238 (A) (22 May 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

544/1990

Judges

Van Heerden, Smalberger, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Howie

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Minnie’s conduct was motivated by personal grievances and not by any official police duty. The evidence established that Minnie assaulted Wilson for personal reasons and only invoked his status as a police officer as a pretext when confronted by bystanders. The court held that Minnie did not act within the scope of his employment as a police officer, nor was there a sufficiently close link between his conduct and the business of the State to justify vicarious liability. Accordingly, the State is not liable for the damages suffered by Wilson. The damages…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Assault
• Scope Of Employment
• Damages For Dignity
• Pain And Suffering