Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional Law [2025] ZAGPJHC 742

Kunene and Another v Malema (A2023/092235)

Kunene and Another v Malema (A2023/092235) [2025] ZAGPJHC 742 (5 August 2025)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A2023/092235
Judges
Wilson, Mfenyana, Wentzel

The court held that Mr. Kunene's repeated use of the word 'cockroach' to describe Mr. Malema in a televised political debate constituted hate speech under section 10 of the Equality Act. The term 'cockroach' carries internationally recognised genocidal and dehumanising connotations, particularly in the context of political conflict, and its use was reasonably understood as intended to promote hatred and incite harm against Mr. Malema based on his political beliefs and conscience. The court rejected the argument that political affiliation cannot be a ground for hate speech, finding that consci…

Source excerpt

  • Hate Speech
  • Equality Act Section 10
  • Political Expression
  • Limits On Free Speech
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2019] ZAEQC 5

Gordhan v Malema and Another (EQJHB 5/2019)

Gordhan v Malema and Another (EQJHB 5/2019) [2019] ZAEQC 5; 2020 (1) SA 587 (GJ); [2020] 1 All SA 417 (GJ) (31 October 2019)

Court
Equality Court
Case number
EQJHB 5/2019
Judge
Sutherland

The court found that the respondent's utterances, while hurtful and aimed at engendering hatred against the applicant, did not contravene section 10 of the Equality Act. The remarks were directed at the applicant personally and not on the basis of any prohibited ground such as race or ethnicity. The references to 'cabal' and 'dog of White Monopoly Capital' were interpreted as political criticism rather than hate speech targeting a protected group. The court held that the Equality Act does not cover vilification based solely on personal attributes not listed as prohibited grounds. The applicat…

Source excerpt

  • Hate Speech
  • Equality Act Section 10
  • Freedom Of Expression
  • Constitutional Interpretation
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2018] ZASCA 180

Masuku and Another v South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies (1062/2017)

Masuku and Another v South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies (1062/2017) [2018] ZASCA 180; 2019 (2) SA 194 (SCA); [2019] 1 All SA 608 (SCA) (4 December 2018)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1062/2017
Judges
Lewis, Wallis, Zondi, Dambuza, Matojane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the impugned statements, when interpreted in their full context, did not amount to hate speech as defined by section 16(2) of the Constitution. The court found that references to 'Zionists' and other terms in the statements were directed at supporters of the State of Israel and did not constitute advocacy of hatred based on religion or ethnicity. The court emphasized that offensive, hurtful, or politically inflammatory speech remains protected unless it crosses the constitutional threshold of advocacy of hatred and incitement to harm. The Equality Court e…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom Of Expression
  • Hate Speech
  • Equality Act Section 10
  • Constitutional Limitation
  • Advocacy Of Hatred
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.