Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others

Following the collapse of a walkway bridge at Hoërskool Driehoek on 1 February 2019, which caused the deaths of four white learners and injuries to others, inflammatory social media comments were made celebrating the deaths and attributing them to divine or ancestral punishment of white people. These comments were posted and endorsed on official Black First Land First (BLF) social media accounts by its spokesperson and deputy secretary-general. Solidarity, acting in its own interest, on behalf of bereaved families, and in the public interest, instituted proceedings in the Equality Court under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA), seeking declaratory and remedial relief on the basis that the comments constituted hate speech. After hearing argument, but following the delivery of the SCA judgment in Qwelane v SAHRC declaring section 10 of PEPUDA unconstitutional, the Equality Court declared the proceedings a nullity instead of delivering a substantive judgment. Solidarity appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Equality Court declaring the proceedings a nullity was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Equality Court to be finalised by the original presiding judge or, if unavailable, by another judge as directed by the Judge President. No order as to costs was made.

The case affirms the fundamental duty of South African courts to decide disputes placed before them and clarifies that courts lack the power to declare their own proceedings a nullity. It reinforces principles of judicial finality, procedural regularity, and enforceability of court orders, particularly in the context of Equality Court litigation affected by evolving constitutional jurisprudence on hate speech.