C.P v Venter and Others

In February 2019, a physical altercation occurred during an Afrikaans class at Sans Souci Girls High School between the applicant (a learner) and the first respondent (her teacher). After withdrawing an earlier application in the Wynberg Magistrate's Court, the applicant launched proceedings in the Equality Court, seeking relief both under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (Equality Act) and the Constitution. The applicant claimed, among other things, damages for harassment and discrimination (based on race and language), declaratory orders that the school's code of conduct was unconstitutional, and orders compelling the provincial and national education authorities to intervene. The parties agreed to separate the issue of the Equality Court's jurisdiction from the merits.

• Whether an Equality Court may sit as both a High Court and Equality Court in the absence of parallel proceedings in the High Court.
• Whether the alleged acts of harassment and discrimination relied upon by the applicant fall within the ambit of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.

The application was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

An Equality Court is a separate and distinct statutory court ('special purpose vehicle') with powers limited to those set out in the Equality Act. It may not sit as both an Equality Court and a High Court unless there are parallel proceedings pending in the High Court that have been consolidated with the Equality Court proceedings. A party alleging discrimination under the Equality Act must adduce sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case; bare allegations or subjective perceptions are not enough.

The court noted that section 20(4)(d) of the Equality Act—which requires consideration of whether proceedings could facilitate the development of judicial precedent—refers specifically to the development of jurisprudence in the area of equality law (section 9 of the Constitution), and cannot be interpreted to encompass constitutional issues beyond section 9. The court also observed that the first respondent's submission that a single incident cannot amount to 'harassment' was incorrect, as the definition of harassment encompasses conduct that is either persistent *or* serious.

This case reinforces the binding authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Manong by confirming that Equality Courts are distinct statutory tribunals that cannot unilaterally assume the jurisdiction of the High Court without consolidated parallel proceedings. It also provides important guidance on the evidentiary threshold required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Equality Act, applying the Supreme Court of Appeal's reasoning in Nedbank v Survé.