SCA upholds DA’s ‘toilet interview’ appeal
EX-DA member Ntombenhle Rulumeni has lost out on her R10m damages claim against her former party, which she sued for injuring her dignity when it interviewed her in the waiting room of the women’s bathroom at an East London golf club.
A Daily Dispatch report says the SCA on Friday upheld the DA’s appeal against the 2019 Eastern Cape High Court (East London) judgment which had found the party liable for damages suffered by Rulumeni as a result of what was infamously dubbed ‘the toilet interview’.
Rulumeni sued the party for R10m in 2016 after she was interviewed for a position on its electoral list as a BCM councillor in what she described as a toilet or ablution facility at the East London Golf Estate in Bunkers hill. She described it as a ‘humiliating ordeal’.
The Eastern Cape High Court (East London) found the party liable for the damages Rulumeni could prove for deliberately injuring her dignity but dismissed a claim for loss of income she had lodged based on her having lost out on the post.
However, the SCA on Friday found there had been no wrongful intention on the part of the DA to infringe her dignity.
SCA Judge Glenn Goosen – with Judges Tati Makgoka, Caroline Nicholls, and Acting Judges Wendy Hughes and Gayaat Salie agreeing – said the labelling of the changing room area as a ‘toilet or ablution facility was unhelpful, notes the Daily Dispatch report.
‘Rather, the focus should have been on the attributes of the room itself, and its layout. The photographs forming part of the record show that it was a large, carpeted room containing lockers, a dressing table, wall mounted mirror and a couch.’
Though the toilets were accessed via this room, it did not mean the room was either a toilet or ablution facility.
Goosen said using such a space as a place for an interview did not offend the values of society and was therefore not wrongful.
He also found there had been no intention on the DA’S part to injure her dignity. Goosen said the DA’s counsel had during argument reiterated the party’s unequivocal apology to Rulumeni for any hurt or insult that she felt or experienced as a result of what had happened though the party had intended no such offence.
As a result, the DA sought no cost order against Rulumeni for the appeal proceedings.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
