- Dawood Lagardien must pay R200,000 in damages, apologise publicly and refrain from further discriminatory conduct.
- The Equality Court found that a sign declaring LGBTQ+ people unwelcome at his Gqeberha business violated the Equality Act.
- The court referred the matter to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for a criminal investigation.
A Gqeberha business owner who displayed a sign declaring LGBTQ+ people unwelcome at his premises has been ordered to pay R200,000 in damages, issue a public apology and refrain from further discriminatory conduct after the Equality Court found that his actions violated the law.
Judge BM Pakati delivered the judgment on 6 October 2026 in an application brought by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), with the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) joining the proceedings. Media Monitoring Africa Trust participated as amicus curiae, assisting the court on issues involving freedom of expression, religious beliefs and the rights of LGBTQ+ people.
Dawood Lagardien, owner of La Gardi Plastics at 70 Bell Street in Parkside, Gqeberha, was also interdicted from engaging in further hate speech, unfair discrimination or harassment. The court referred his conduct to the NPA for a thorough criminal investigation.
Sign declared LGBTQ+ people unwelcome
The dispute began when a sign was put up outside Lagardien’s business that read “LGBTQ not welcome at LaGardi. Save our children.”
Lagardien said the sign followed an incident in June 2023 when two men entered his premises and kissed in front of other customers and young children. He maintained that he asked them to leave because he considered their behaviour indecent, rather than because he intended to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.
The SAHRC argued that the sign went beyond expressing a personal or religious objection to particular behaviour. It said the wording excluded people based on their sexual orientation and communicated that members of the LGBTQ+ community were unwelcome at the business.
The commission also challenged Lagardien’s online activity. On 16 July 2023, he created and administered a WhatsApp group called “Our rights anti-LGBT”, which had more than 600 members. The group used the motto “Evil will advance no further” and circulated messages that the commission said promoted hostility towards LGBTQ+ people.
Some messages referred to LGBTQ+ people as vermin and called for force to be used against them. The SAHRC argued that the group’s content, membership and purpose contributed to an environment of hostility and intimidation, with messages capable of circulating beyond the original participants.
The commission sought a declaratory order that Lagardien’s conduct constituted hate speech, unfair discrimination and harassment under sections 6, 10 and 11 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. It initially requested R500,000 in damages, a public apology, an interdict against further offending conduct and a referral to the NPA.
Although the sign was subsequently removed and the WhatsApp group discontinued, the SAHRC pursued final relief because Lagardien continued to maintain that his conduct was lawful. Judge Pakati rejected his argument that the matter had become moot, finding that a live dispute remained over the legality of his actions and that the court still had to determine the merits of the application.
Business owner relies on religious freedom
Lagardien argued that his actions were informed by his Islamic faith and his constitutional rights to freedom of religion and dignity. He maintained that his objection concerned sexual behaviour in front of children and customers, rather than an intention to exclude LGBTQ+ people from his business.
He also disputed responsibility for the sign’s wording, saying he had placed it outside the business with community support. He denied creating the WhatsApp group to incite harm and argued that the commissions had not adequately investigated his account of the incident.
Lagardien accused the SAHRC of failing to investigate alleged violations of his own and his customers’ rights. He brought a counter-application seeking relief against the commission, including findings that it had failed to fulfil its constitutional duties and provide appropriate protection.
The SAHRC opposed the counter-application, arguing that Lagardien had not established a factual basis for the relief sought. Judge Pakati dismissed it, finding that he had failed to demonstrate a prima facie right to the relief claimed.
The CGE supported the main application, arguing that the sign and WhatsApp group amounted to discrimination and harassment against a vulnerable community. It sought additional remedies, including a public apology across social media platforms and training on LGBTQIA+ rights to promote greater understanding and respect.
Media Monitoring Africa Trust addressed the tension between freedom of religion, freedom of expression and the rights to equality and dignity. It argued that religious beliefs could not provide blanket protection for expression that promoted hatred or undermined the rights of others.
Court examines hate speech and discrimination
Judge Pakati considered whether the sign and the WhatsApp messages could reasonably be understood as demonstrating a clear intention to cause harm, incite harm or promote or propagate hatred. The court also considered whether the conduct amounted to harassment and unfair discrimination under the Equality Act.
The judgment emphasised that the assessment had to consider the words used, their context and how a reasonable person would understand their meaning. It was not necessary to establish that the speaker expressly admitted an intention to discriminate if the wording and circumstances objectively demonstrated the prohibited conduct.
The court found that the sign clearly identified LGBTQ+ people as unwelcome at the business because of their sexual orientation. It rejected the argument that the notice was a legitimate measure to protect children, finding that its purpose was to keep same-sex couples away.
The court also considered the WhatsApp group’s size, the content of its messages and the circumstances surrounding its creation. It found that the group’s communications promoted hostility towards LGBTQ+ people and that the conduct had the potential to cause harm beyond the individuals directly involved.
Judge Pakati examined the constitutional relationship between religious freedom, freedom of expression, equality and dignity. The judgment stressed that religious and expressive rights are not absolute and must be exercised consistently with the Constitution.
The court held that Lagardien’s religious convictions did not entitle him to infringe the rights of others. It found that the sign and the administration of the WhatsApp group constituted hate speech, unfair discrimination and harassment, rather than merely an expression of personal religious belief.
R200,000 damages and NPA referral
The Equality Court declared that Lagardien’s conduct constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act, unfair discrimination based on sexual orientation under section 6, and harassment under section 11.
Judge Pakati interdicted him from engaging in further hate speech, unfair discrimination or harassment as defined by the Act. The court ordered him to issue a public apology acknowledging the harm caused by his conduct and committing to refrain from similar behaviour in future.
The court awarded R200,000 in damages, less than the R500,000 initially sought by the SAHRC. The money must be paid to a non-governmental organisation identified by the commission that actively promotes equality.
Lagardien must pay the amount in four monthly instalments of R50,000, with the first instalment due within four months of the order. The award is a civil damages order and not a criminal fine.
The court also referred the matter to the NPA for a thorough criminal investigation into his conduct. The referral does not amount to a criminal conviction; any decision to prosecute will follow the relevant criminal justice process.
Lagardien was ordered to pay the CGE’s legal costs. The court made no costs order in respect of the SAHRC and Media Monitoring Africa Trust.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
