Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
1 June 2011

Equality Court Judgement against Jon Qwelane

IN THE EQUALITY COURT OF JOHANNESBURG

HELD AT THE JOHANNESBURG MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CASE NUMBER: 44/EQ JHB

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISION COMPLAINANT

AND

JON QWULANE RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for judgment by default in terms of Rule 32 of Act 32 of 1944. The court finds that there has been proper service on the respondent. The respondent was not in attendance at court. The complainant relied on the founding affidavit and argued the matter.

2. The complaint is undefended. The respondent has filed no papers. In the circumstances there is only one version before court. It is that of the complainant. The court is not going to repeat the argument presented as it already forms part of the record. This argument is accepted.

3. In the totality of the submissions tendered by the complainant the court finds the following:

3.1 The complainant has the necessary locus standi to institute these proceedings.

3.2 This court has the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.

3.3 The contents of the article and cartoon amount to hate speech (see here).

3.4 The article and cartoon propagates hatred and harm against homosexuals. Homosexuals as represented by the complainant have suffered emotional pain and suffering as a result of the action of the respondent.

4. The court therefore grants judgment in favour of the complainant as follows:

4.1 The respondent is ordered to make an unconditional apology to the gay and lesbian community. Such apology is to be published in the Sunday Sun as well as one other national newspaper.

4.2 Damages in an amount of RI 00 000-00 is granted. Such amount is to be paid to the complainant and to be used to promote and raise awareness regarding the rights of gays and lesbians.

4.3 No costs are ordered.

DATED AT JOHANNESBURG THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2011.

NM KARIKAN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE (EQUALITY COURT) JOHANNESBIRG

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest