The significance of the case of Ethel Dlamini is found in the Supreme Court’s progressive interpretation of the chain of events that were being inflicted to Mrs Dlamini as a violation of her dignity. The court could have looked into the requirements of an interdict to see if Mrs Dlamini’s case was in line with them or not. These are whether the applicant has a prima facie right; apprehension of irreparable injury, and that there is no other satisfactory remedy. Instead, the Court observed that Mrs Dlamini was deprived arbitrarily of the field given to her by her father-in-law and that she was being forced to live in unsanitary and degrading conditions while the decision of the Regional Administrator was pending. It then ruled that her right to dignity was being violated.
Mavundla, Simangele D.
"Ethel Dlamini (Born Gule) v Prince Chief GasawaNgwane (93/2018B)  SZSC 40 (Judgment 8 October 2019),"
SAIPAR Case Review: Vol. 3:
1, Article 5.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/scr/vol3/iss1/5