South Africa Case Law

Arpin-Scholtz and Others v HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t.a Medipost Pharmacy and Another (EC2022/007843)

Arpin-Scholtz and Others v HH Durrheim (Pty) Ltd t.a Medipost Pharmacy and Another (EC2022/007843) [2024] ZAEQC 6 (12 December 2024)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

EC2022/007843

Judge

Malindi

The court found that the utterance 'julle is sif' was made in a private meeting and not communicated to any third party, as required by section 10(1) of PEPUDA and the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Qwelane. The evidence showed the boardroom was soundproof and the door was closed during the meeting, preventing dissemination. The court held that, even if the words were offensive, they did not amount to hate speech or harassment under the Act, as there was no public communication or incitement of harm. The applicants failed to establish a causal link between the utterance and the non-…

Source excerpt

• Hate Speech
• Unfair Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation
• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Damages Claim
• Counterclaim

T.K v S (A873/2016)

T.K v S (A873/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 515 (17 April 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A873/2016

Judges

M J Teffo, H M Msimang

The High Court upheld a rape appeal, finding the trial court failed to properly apply caution to single-witness evidence and that consent remained reasonably possible.

• Rape
• Single Witness Cautionary Rule
• Consent
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Sexual Orientation
• Appeal On Factual Findings

Mapodile v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (1067\2016)

Mapodile v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (1067\2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 174; 2016 (2) SACR 413 (GJ) (24 June 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

1067\2016

Judge

M M MABESELE

The High Court ordered prison authorities to house a gay inmate in a single cell or with inmates of the same sexual orientation to protect his dignity and safety.

• Right To Dignity
• Equality Before Law
• Unfair Discrimination
• Prisoners Rights
• Sexual Orientation
• Urgent Interdict

Strydom v Nederduitse Gereformeerde Gemeente Moreleta Park (26926/05)

Strydom v Nederduitse Gereformeerde Gemeente Moreleta Park (26926/05) [2008] ZAEQC 1; (2009) 30 ILJ 868 (EqC) (27 August 2008)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

26926/05

Judge

D A Basson

The court found that the termination of the applicant's contract was based solely on his sexual orientation, a prohibited ground under PEPUDA and the Constitution. The respondent failed to prove that the discrimination was fair, as the applicant was not in a position of spiritual leadership nor required to teach Christian doctrine. The church's reliance on religious freedom did not outweigh the applicant's right to equality and dignity, especially given his limited role and lack of church membership. The discrimination caused significant emotional, psychological, and financial harm to the app…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Impairment Of Dignity
• Freedom Of Religion
• Employment Contract Termination

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (CCT 60/04)

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (CCT 60/04) [2005] ZACC 19; 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC); 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) (1 December 2005)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 60/04

Judges

Sachs, Langa, Moseneke, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob, O'Regan

The Constitutional Court held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage under the common law and Marriage Act constitutes unfair discrimination and denial of equal protection and dignity under sections 9(1), 9(3), and 10 of the Constitution. The Court found that the under-inclusiveness of the law is not justified by arguments based on procreation, religious doctrine, international law, or family law pluralism. The Court declared the common law definition of marriage and section 30(1) of the Marriage Act invalid to the extent that they do not allow same-sex couples to marry. However…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Unfair Discrimination
• Marriage Act
• Sexual Orientation
• Reading In Remedy

Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (CCT48/02)

Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (CCT48/02) [2003] ZACC 2; 2003 (4) SA 266 (CC); 2004 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (17 March 2003)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT48/02

Judges

O'Regan, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Moseneke, Yacoob

The Court held that the challenged provisions of the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act 47 of 2001 and the 2002 regulations unfairly discriminate against judges in permanent same-sex life partnerships by denying them benefits afforded to spouses. This discrimination is on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status and is not justifiable under the Constitution. The Court found that the applicant was entitled to direct access because the issues had already been considered in previous litigation, there was no dispute of fact, and the respondents did not oppose the re…

Source excerpt

• Equality Clause
• Unfair Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation
• Judicial Remuneration
• Reading In
• Constitutional Invalidity