Authored By: Blessing Banda
Cavendish University Zambia
Sarah Longwe v Intercontinental Hotels ((1993) 4 LRC 221) [1992] ZMHC 106 (4 November 1992)
Court High Court of Zambia
Judge Hon. Mr. Justice D.K. Musumali
4 November 1992
Brief facts of the Case
Ms Sarah Longwe, a well known activist was The Intercontinental Hotel had a policy that barred “unaccompanied women” from entering its Luangwa Bar. This policy was reportedly implemented to prevent sex work and the disturbances it allegedly caused. Ms. Longwe, was refused entry to the hotel bar. Once, she was picking up her children from a party, and another time, she was attending a meeting of a women’s rights organization. The hotel’s refusal to admit her was based solely on her being an unaccompanied woman, in accordance with their policy. Following her rejection, Ms. Longwe filed a petition in the High Court of Zambia, claiming that the hotel’s policy was discriminatory and violated her fundamental constitutional rights.
Issues
The court had to determine the following key legal questions:
- Whether the hotel’s policy of barring “unaccompanied women” from its bar constitutes an act of sex discrimination?
- Whether the hotel’s policy was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights, specifically the right to freedom of movement and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status?
- Do the constitutional human rights provisions in Zambia apply only to the actions of the state (vertical application) or can they also be enforced against private individuals and bodies (horizontal application)?
- To what extent can international human rights conventions, which Zambia has ratified, be used to interpret and apply domestic law?
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Longwe the petitioner argued that the hotel’s policy was a clear and “naked” form of discrimination based on sex. A man, whether accompanied or not, was not subject to the same restriction.She contended that the policy violated her constitutional right to freedom of movement specifically (Article 21) of the Bill of rights and the right to freedom from discrimination (Article 23) as enshrined in the Constitution of Zambia.
Further the petitioner argued that the constitutional provisions on human rights have a horizontal application, meaning they are binding not only on the state but also on private entities and individuals when they are acting in a public capacity , in this case operating a hotel bar accessible to the public).
To support her case, she cited several international human rights instruments that Zambia had ratified, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), arguing that these should be used to interpret the spirit and intent of the Zambian Constitution.
On the other hand, the defendants argued that their policy was a reasonable measure to maintain order and a respectable atmosphere in the bar, citing complaints from other patrons about disturbances caused by unaccompanied women.
Further , the defense’s primary argument was that the constitutional provisions on human rights apply only to the state and public bodies (vertical application). They contended that a private entity like a hotel was not bound by these provisions and therefore could not be held to have violated a person’s constitutional rights.
Judgment / Final Decision
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Sarah Longwe.The court declared the hotel’s policy of barring unaccompanied women from its bar to be discriminatory and a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.Further,the appeal was allowed, and the court issued an order declaring the policy unlawful.
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
The court found the hotel’s policy to be a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex. It reasoned that the policy created an unfair distinction between men and women, where men were given freedom of movement and access to the bar, while women were restricted. The court rejected the hotel’s justification, finding that it could not override a fundamental constitutional right.
