challenge
14 November 2007
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 grounds 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, after which an
agreement was reached.
She then signed the lease agreement and was given the keys to the flat. When
she read the lease 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 hereby 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, he 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.
Enquiries:
Commissioner Karthy Govender
Cell: 083 265 3610
Vincent Moaga
Commission Spokesperson
Cell: 073 562 9866
Issued by: South African Human Rights Commission
14 November 2007
