Hearing a challenge to provisions of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957, the court held unanimously that it is constitutional to criminalise brothel-keeping.

[1] Though the women did not dispute their involvement in sex work, they appealed their convictions to the High Court of South Africa, contending that the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act are unconstitutional.

O'Regan and Sachs held that insofar as the law makes the prostitute (typically a woman) the primary offender and her patron (typically man) nothing more than an accomplice, it reinforces sexist double standards and perpetuates gender stereotypes in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional commitment to gender equality.

On these grounds, the minority would have confirmed the High Court's order that section 20(1)(aA) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional and invalid.

[2][3][4][5][6][7] Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango observed that the majority judgment's deference to the political branches was characteristic of Ngcobo's jurisprudence.