Le Roux v Stellenbosch University and Others (24729/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 85 (3 March 2025)

Le Roux v Stellenbosch University and Others (24729/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 85 (3 March 2025)

The court held that the applicant's challenge was based on a preference for a narrow interpretation of the Student Electoral Act, but admitted that the relevant provisions were capable of more than one reasonable construction. The Student Court and Student Appeal Court adopted a plausible interpretation, and the applicant's disagreement with that choice did not render their decisions so unreasonable as to be reviewable under PAJA. The court emphasised that judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its own view on the merits for that of the decision-maker. The applicant failed to address the finding regarding contravention of item 8 of the Student Electoral Act, and there was...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 85
Parties
Applicant: Johanna Helena Le Roux; Respondent: Stellenbosch University; Respondent: Roceshia Joanne Lihle Februarie; Respondent: Amber Nieuwenhyzen
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2025
Case Number
24729/2024
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
L G Nuku
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Student Elections, Unreasonableness Review, University Governance
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Student Elections Unreasonableness Review University Governance

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Helena Le Roux

Applicant

Stellenbosch University

Respondent

Roceshia Joanne Lihle Februarie

Respondent

Amber Nieuwenhyzen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions of the Student Court and Student Appeal Court to disqualify the applicant from the SRC elections were so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made them.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct contravened the Student Electoral Act provisions regarding campaign sponsorship and endorsement.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant constitute proper review grounds under PAJA or impermissible appeal grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's challenge was based on a preference for a narrow interpretation of the Student Electoral Act, but admitted that the relevant provisions were capable of more than one reasonable construction. The Student Court and Student Appeal Court adopted a plausible interpretation, and the applicant's disagreement with that choice did not render their decisions so unreasonable as to be reviewable under PAJA. The court emphasised that judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its own view on the merits for that of the decision-maker. The applicant failed to address the finding regarding contravention of item 8 of the Student Electoral Act, and there was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.