Democratic Alliance vs. Rulumeni - (13 Jan 2023)

Wrongfulness was to be established objectively, taking into consideration the legal convictions of the community

Civil

Appeal is against an order of the Eastern Cape, East London Circuit Court (the high court) which held the Democratic Alliance liable for damages for infringing the dignity of Ms. Rulumeni. Ms. Rulumeni had instituted action against the Democratic Alliance for infringement of her dignity when, in February 2016, she was interviewed in what she described as a toilet or ablution facility. Ms. Rulumeni claimed both general damages for infringement of her dignity and pure economic loss because she was not selected in a position sufficiently high on the electoral list to secure appointment as a municipal councillor.

The high Court found that, the choice of venue, which it described as an ablution facility, was wrongful and that the interview was conducted with the intention of infringing Ms. Rulumeni’s dignity. It therefore found the Democratic Alliance liable for general damages sustained by Ms. Rulumeni. It dismissed the claim for pure economic loss on the basis that, no evidence was presented to sustain the claim.

The description of the venue chosen for the interview was not definitive. It held that, wrongfulness was to be established objectively, taking into consideration the legal convictions of the community. The venue used for the interview was a well-appointed changing room, carpeted and furnished. Although the ladies’ toilets were accessed via this room, the room itself was not a toilet or ablution facility. The attributes of the room did not, objectively speaking, offend the legal convictions of the community.

The evidence did not establish that, the Democratic Alliance had acted with the intention to infringe Ms. Rulumeni’s dignity. No other suitable venue was available at the time. In the light of the circumstances, in particular the urgent need to finalise the selection process before 8 February 2016, the venue was the best available. The high Court had failed to take into account the uncontested evidence denying an intention to infringe Ms. Rulumeni’s dignity. Neither wrongfulness nor intentions were established. The appeal was therefore upheld.

Tags : DIGNITY INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES