![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
South Africa, a country that was once colonized, had deliberate and hateful laws pre-democracy, which discriminated against, and segregated races with the intention to divide and conquer territories through marginalization. A case study emerges within this context, which exposes the racial prejudice that still persists, more than 20 years post-democracy. The article is important because it illustrates the historical injustices that exist based on gender imbalances between men and women. It makes a case for racial prejudice that racial inequalities foster resentment that ultimately prevents social cohesion. The article postulates averments such as, whether the description made in the return of service amounts to unfair discrimination on the basis of race, gender and infringement to dignity. This article critically analyses a South African court judgment in which the presiding Judge made several punitive orders against three deputy-sheriffs acting in their public capacity. It will be argued in the circumstances that this was a bold, brazen and a triumphant decision in addressing the colonial ills of the past in South Africa presenting a cure for the indifference and segregation on the basis of race.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Absa Bank Ltd v Zuma 2014, paragraph 2.
2. Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman 2014, paragraph 3.
3. Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman 2014, paragraph 5.
4. Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman 2014, paragraph 6.
5. Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman 2014, paragraph 7.
6. Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman 2014, paragraph 8.
7. Loggerenberg 2018, Erasmus Commentary.
8. South African Broadcasting Corp Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2007.
9. Neethling v MBD Securitisation, Citation2014, paragraph 26.
10. Ritchie v Andrews, Citation1881–1882, paragraph 25.
11. Ritchie v Andrews, Citation1881–1882, p. 258.
12. The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, ‘Newsflash and Matters before Council’ Issue 4 24 June 2014 1–2
13. Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Caster Transport CC; In Re: Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman; In Re: Absa Bank Ltd v Zuma 2014, paragraph 2.
14. Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Caster Transport CC; In Re: Absa Bank Ltd v Marshman; In Re: Absa Bank Ltd v Zuma 2014, paragraph 2.
15. Code of Conduct, Schedule 3.
16. Nedcor Bank Ltd v Hennop and Another, Citation2003, p. 6
17. Barens v Lottering (2000).
18. SA Revenue Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & Others 2017, paragraph 12.
19. Harksen v Lane (Citation1997), paragraph 53.
20. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice (Citation1999), paragraph 28.
21. LAWSA VIII Delict Wrongfulness, par 80.
22. Masiu v Dos Ramos (Citation2014), p. 21.
23. Cappelletti, (Citation1972–1973), p. 655.
24. Cappelletti, 1972–1973, p. 673.
25. Wile and Another v MEC, Department of Home Affairs, Gauteng et al. (Citation2017), paragraph 56.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Rashri Baboolal-Frank
Rashri Baboolal-Frank holds the following degrees LLB, LLM, LLD. She is currently near completion of her MBA. She is a practising Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and a Senior Lecturer.
Thino Bekker
Thino Bekker holds the following degrees BIURIS, LLB, LLM and LLD. He is a practising attorney and notary. He is an Associate Professor.