Harrielall v University of KwaZulu-Natal (CCT100/17) [2017] ZACC 38; 2018 (1) BCLR 12 (CC) (31 October 2017)

Harrielall v University of KwaZulu-Natal (CCT100/17) [2017] ZACC 38; 2018 (1) BCLR 12 (CC) (31 October 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that the University properly applied its admission policy and the applicant was not admitted because other candidates were more qualified. The review of the University's decision constituted a constitutional issue, as it involved the right to administrative justice under PAJA and the right to access further education under section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the applicant, as the Biowatch principle should have applied to shield her from adverse costs orders in constitutional litigation against the State. The Court set aside the costs orders of the lower courts and made no order as to...

Citation
[2017] ZACC 38
Parties
Applicant: Niekara Harrielall; Respondent: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Case Number
CCT 100/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Review of Costs Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal on the merits is refused; leave to appeal on costs is granted and upheld; costs orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal are set aside; no order as to costs in the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Right to Education, Review of Administrative Action, Biowatch Costs Principle, Access to Further Education, University Admission Policy, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Right to Education Review of Administrative Action Biowatch Costs Principle Access to Further Education University Admission Policy +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niekara Harrielall

Applicant

University of KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Review of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University of KwaZulu-Natal properly applied its admission policy in declining the applicant's admission to the MBChB programme.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the applicant contrary to the Biowatch principle.
  3. 3 Whether the review of the university's decision constitutes a constitutional issue under PAJA and section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the University properly applied its admission policy and the applicant was not admitted because other candidates were more qualified. The review of the University's decision constituted a constitutional issue, as it involved the right to administrative justice under PAJA and the right to access further education under section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the applicant, as the Biowatch principle should have applied to shield her from adverse costs orders in constitutional litigation against the State. The Court set aside the costs orders of the lower courts and made no order as to...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on the merits is refused; leave to appeal on costs is granted and upheld; costs orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal are set aside; no order as to costs in the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the merits is refused.
  • Leave to appeal is granted against the costs orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.