Cape Town Trans Woman Vows to Fight on After Equality Court Dismisses Bathroom Rights Case

For nearly three years, Cape Town transgender woman Jackye Majawie has fought to uphold her right to access women’s public bathrooms without fear for her safety.

In 2023, Majawie launched a case in the Equality Court against a cleaning company and one of its employees following a transphobic incident at the Golden Acre Shopping Centre in Cape Town’s City Bowl.

According to the transgender rights and anti-GBV activist, she was harassed in the queue for the women’s bathroom by a cleaner who told her she could not use the bathroom because she was “not a woman.”

On the 15th of January, 2026, Magistrate Jane Kgorane handed down her judgement in the case, ruling that while what happened to Majawie was unfortunate, the actions of the cleaner did not meet the criteria for discrimination or hate speech under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA). 

However, Majawie’s fight for justice is not over. She tells MambaOnline that she is applying to appeal her case to the High Court. She is also prepared to take the matter as far as the Constitutional Court to ensure that PEPUDA’s protection from discrimination on the basis of gender and sex is applied to transgender individuals.

The Incident and the Burden of the Legal Battle

According to Majawie, on the 23rd of March, 2023, she was aggressively approached by a cleaner while queuing to use the bathroom at the mall. The cleaner confronted Majawie, telling her she could not use the bathroom because she was “not a woman.”

Majawie corrected the cleaner, but she proceeded to mock and humiliate her, telling her, “Look at you, you are a man!” while onlookers laughed.

She also alleges that the cleaner also attempted to remove her by pulling on her blouse.

Majawie launched an Equality Court case against the cleaner and the cleaning company. The case at a stage included the City of Cape Town as a respondent (the mall’s landlord), but this was dropped due to the cleaning company being outsourced.

The burden of this legal battle has been heavy. Majawie shared with MambaOnline that this litigation has taken a toll on her mentally and financially, having to request funds from organisations Triangle Project and Gender Dynamix to cover the cost of transport to court, as well as having to seek out mental health support during the case.

The Judgement

The Magistrate stated that the cleaner’s altercation with Majawie was awful, but ultimately ruled that it did not meet the criteria for discrimination or hate speech stipulated in PEPUDA.

The court’s justification for this was that the cleaner had been instructed by her company to make sure men did not enter the bathroom. The company issued this instruction to their employees after the mall received complaints that gay men would use the women’s bathroom, and this made some women shoppers uncomfortable.

The court ruled that because the cleaner’s actions were motivated by her employer’s instruction, and the court could not argue with her misperception of Majawie’s gender, her actions lacked the discriminatory intent for PEPUDA to apply. The Magistrate accordingly dismissed the case.

While the court advised the cleaning company to implement LGBTQ+ sensitivity training for its employees, this was not a mandatory order. 

“I feel that the justice system is failing us as the LGBTQIA+ community, but specifically as trans women”, Majawie commented on the outcome of the court case.

There is frustration with the court’s seeming lack of understanding of the harm of misgendering or full acknowledgment of Majawie’s womanhood. “Even when we undergo surgery and legal gender marker changes, we are not acknowledged as women who have rights under the constitution,” she added.

The Fight Continues

When asked about the significance of escalating this case to the Constitutional Court, Majawie emphasised the need for the law to explicitly protect the rights of transgender individuals.

“The Constitutional Court needs to put more provisions in place for the LGBTQ+ community. The constitution says that if you are facing discrimination as a queer individual you can approach the law, but the law is not what they say the law is,” she shared.

She added, “In section nine [the bill of rights prohibits discrimination based on] disability, sex, gender – we are there! This case is the marriage of discrimination based on sex and gender.”