Durr en Andere v Universiteit van Stellenbosch en 'n Ander (640/89) [1990] ZASCA 70; 1990 (3) SA 598 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 412 (A) (1 June 1990)

Durr en Andere v Universiteit van Stellenbosch en 'n Ander (640/89) [1990] ZASCA 70; 1990 (3) SA 598 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 412 (A) (1 June 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the prohibition on demonstrations issued by the University Council was, in substance, a disciplinary provision as it prescribed student conduct and imposed sanctions for breach. Under the Stellenbosch University Act and the Universities Act, such provisions must be enacted as statutes or regulations following specific procedures, including consultation with the Senate and approval by the Minister. The prohibition did not comply with these statutory requirements and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. The Court rejected the argument that the prohibition could be enforced contractually, holding that students are only bound to obey legally valid...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 70
Parties
Appellant: Leslee Durr; Appellant: Black Students' Organisation of Stellenbosch; Appellant: Nasionale Unie van Suid-Afrikaanse Studente; Respondent: Universiteit van Stellenbosch; Respondent: Raad van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1990
Case Number
640/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Provincial Division, Cape of Good Hope
Outcome
Appeal upheld; the prohibition on demonstrations declared invalid.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Hoexter, Smalberger, Eksteen, Friedman
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Disciplinary Provisions, Statutory Interpretation, University Regulations
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Ultra Vires Disciplinary Provisions Statutory Interpretation University Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslee Durr

Appellant

Black Students' Organisation of Stellenbosch

Appellant

Nasionale Unie van Suid-Afrikaanse Studente

Appellant

Universiteit van Stellenbosch

Respondent

Raad van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Provincial Division, Cape of Good Hope

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University Council had the legal authority to impose a blanket prohibition on demonstrations on campus.
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition constituted a disciplinary provision requiring compliance with statutory procedures.
  3. 3 Whether the prohibition was valid and enforceable against students.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the prohibition on demonstrations issued by the University Council was, in substance, a disciplinary provision as it prescribed student conduct and imposed sanctions for breach. Under the Stellenbosch University Act and the Universities Act, such provisions must be enacted as statutes or regulations following specific procedures, including consultation with the Senate and approval by the Minister. The prohibition did not comply with these statutory requirements and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. The Court rejected the argument that the prohibition could be enforced contractually, holding that students are only bound to obey legally valid...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; the prohibition on demonstrations declared invalid.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is replaced with an order granting relief in terms of prayers 2 and 4 of the Notice of Motion.