SA Human Rights Commission wins a racial discrimination court challenge

It’s a victory for racial equality. The Equality Court has found in favour of the SA Human Rights Commission in its court challenge on behalf of a Durban couple, to force a landlord at a “white group only” block of flats to change its racially discriminating admission policy which is exclusive to white tenants.

The Commission expresses its satisfaction with the outcome of this case and wishes to state that this court order sends out a clear message that people who unfairly discriminate will be held accountable for their conduct.

Section 6 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000 provides that no person may unfairly discriminate against any other person on the ground of race, including the exclusions of a particular race group under any rule or practice that appears to be legitimate but which is actually aimed at maintaining exclusive control by a particular race group.

In July 2007 the complainant, a white woman who is married to an Indian man, responded to an advertisement regarding the letting of a flat in Dunmarsh Building, in Amanzimtoti. She then met with the landlord and, after which an agreement was reached.  

She then signed the lease agreement and was given the keys to the flat. When shed read the lease the agreement she noticed a discriminatory clause 21 which stated: “the lessee acknowledges that he knows and understands that the premises can be let for occupation by the members of the WHITE GROUP only and that he herby declares that he is a member of that GROUP in terms of Act NO. 36 of 1966, as amended.”

This clause concerned the complainant considerably as she is married to an Indian man, Mr. Kengan.  She then went to see the landlord and informed him that she was married to an Indian person.  He indicated that he would then have to consult with the other tenants to ascertain if there were any objections.  

Subsequently, the landlord telephoned the complainant and informed her that he could no longer let the flat out to her as the other tenants objected to living next door to Indian people.   When the applicant together with her husband met again with the landlord, he provided a different explanation for not letting the flat to her. 

The landlord stated that as the complainant had provided him with an incorrect surname in the first instance, and could therefore, not let out the flat to her. According to the complainant the reason for this confusion was that she was awaiting a new identity document which would have reflected her married surname as Kengan. While waiting for the new identity document, she used her old identity document, which was issued under her maiden name of Gerber. 

The complainant then lodged a complaint with the Commission, court papers were then lodged with the Equality Court alleging unfair discrimination on the basis of race. The landlord defended the action, and after negotiations between the Commission and the landlord’s legal representatives, a settlement agreement which was made an order of court, was reached.

In terms of the court order, the landlord agreed that his actions were unconstitutional and as a result agreed to pay the complainant ten thousand rand in compensation. Also, Clause 21 of the lease agreement was declared unconstitutional and invalid. Furthermore, the landlord was required to notify all his tenants that this clause is no longer enforceable.

                                                                Ends

Enquiries: Vincent Moaga- SAHRC Media Relations on 073 562 9866