From CompliNEWS | Financial Services Intelligence Watch

Strydom v Sanlam Life (Sanlam adviser loses urgent court bid to preserve 28-year relationship despite succeeding on key racial remark argument)

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an urgent application by an independent financial adviser seeking to preserve his 28-year contractual relationship with Sanlam following allegations of racial harassment. Compli-Serve reports that the dispute arose after the adviser, Strydom, was alleged to have said ‘nou weer ’n bobbejaan op die lyn’ during a poor-quality telephone call with a coloured Sanlam consultant, who believed the remark was directed at her and was racially offensive. Although the Court accepted uncontested expert linguistic evidence that Strydom’s explanation was plausible – namely that the expression was one of frustration about the telephone connection and was not directed at the consultant – it emphasised that the objective test for derogatory language first requires a factual finding that the words were aimed at a person. On the evidence before it, the Court found that this had not been established. However, the adviser still failed to obtain interim relief because Sanlam was entitled to rely on separate, earlier incidents to justify terminating the contract. These included a 2022 complaint about allegedly racist comments and a later conversation in which Strydom was said to have linked declining service levels to Sanlam having ‘verkleur’. Because he had not substantively answered those allegations before the litigation, the Court held that they could independently support the termination and defeat his claimed right to reinstatement.

The case is an important reminder for financial services providers that adviser conduct matters should be properly documented, investigated and addressed in context, and that historical conduct may remain relevant when assessing whether an adviser continues to meet an organisation’s ethical, reputational and workplace standards. The application was dismissed with costs.

By Legalbrief Today
Western Cape High Court
Parties: Strydom v Sanlam Life Insurance and Others

Judgment: 31 July 2026

Keywords: Interim interdict sought against termination of independent contractor’s financial adviser contract – Alleged racial harassment – Objective test for derogatory language (‘bobbejaan’) requires finding that words directed at a person – Expert linguistic evidence accepted – Respondent entitled to rely on prior racist comments to justify termination

Summary

The applicant launched urgent proceedings in July 2026 seeking an interim interdict to restore and preserve his financial adviser contract with Sanlam, pending an action for a declaration that the termination of that contract was unlawful. Strydom, an independent-contractor financial adviser with 28 years’ service was informed that Sanlam intended terminating his contract following a finding that he had breached its workplace harassment policy. The trigger was a remark made during a poor-quality telephone call with a consultant, Visagie, a coloured woman: ‘nou weer ‘n bobbejaan op die lyn’. Visagie believed that the remark was directed at her and was racially offensive. Strydom maintained that it was a colloquial Afrikaans expression of frustration about the poor connection, addressed to a colleague, not to Visagie. An independent inquiry rejected his explanation and recommended termination. Sanlam accepted this. In its answering papers, Sanlam also relied on two earlier incidents, a 2022 complaint about comments made to colleagues and a conversation with one Hagan in which the applicant allegedly linked declining service levels to Sanlam having ‘verkleur’ (appointed people of colour) both of which had been raised but not substantively answered before litigation.

Discussion

The court accepted on unchallenged expert linguistic evidence that the applicant’s explanation was plausible and that Sanlam had not cast serious doubt on it. Christians AJ held that while the test for racially derogatory language is objective, that test presupposes an anterior finding that the words were directed at a person. Context and surrounding circumstances remain relevant to that anterior inquiry. On the evidence, the statement was not directed at Visagie. However, applying Matador Buildings v Harman (a valid, undisclosed reason may retrospectively justify a cancellation), the court found that the applicant had deliberately failed to engage with the 2022 complaint and Hagan conversation, which Sanlam could rely on to justify termination independently of the impugned statement. This defeated the applicant’s prima facie right to reinstatement. The court further found no well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured Sanlam.

Order: The application was dismissed with costs.

Read the Judgment here