Matshidiso and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (75657/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 902 (12 October 2016)

Matshidiso and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (75657/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 902 (12 October 2016)

The court held that the Minister's statement recommending a fee increase of up to 8% for universities in 2017 was not a binding decision, but rather a policy recommendation and plea to university councils, who retain the sole authority to set fees. No administrative or executive action had been taken by any respondent that could be reviewed or set aside. The applicants failed to establish any infringement of their constitutional rights or a basis for an interim interdict. The application was dismissed as the relief sought was not competent in law, and there was no justiciable decision before the court.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 902
Parties
Applicant: Mogodi Matshidiso; Applicant: Mokwena Jeanette; Applicant: Setsiba Mampotse Constance; Applicant: Mbatha Thulisile Glendar; Applicant: Matlou Mamoja Tsoaledi; Applicant: Moneoang Sipho Mpho; Applicant: Machete Memory; Applicant: Mavhungu Matodzi; Applicant: African Law Project; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education; Respondent: Chairperson Council for Higher Education; Respondent: Chairperson of Universities of South Africa; Respondent: Vice Chancellor of the University of Limpopo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Case Number
75657/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Review; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, University Fee Increases, Separation of Powers, Legitimate Expectation, Interim Interdict, Constitutional Right to Education
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act University Fee Increases Separation of Powers Legitimate Expectation Interim Interdict Constitutional Right to Education

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogodi Matshidiso

Applicant

Mokwena Jeanette

Applicant

Setsiba Mampotse Constance

Applicant

Mbatha Thulisile Glendar

Applicant

Matlou Mamoja Tsoaledi

Applicant

Moneoang Sipho Mpho

Applicant

Machete Memory

Applicant

Mavhungu Matodzi

Applicant

African Law Project

Applicant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Higher Education

Respondent

Chairperson Council for Higher Education

Respondent

Chairperson of Universities of South Africa

Respondent

Vice Chancellor of the University of Limpopo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Review; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Higher Education's statement recommending university fee increases constitutes administrative action subject to review.
  2. 2 Whether any binding decision on university fee increases for 2017 had been made by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the Minister from making pronouncements on fee increases pending the Fees Commission report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Minister's statement recommending a fee increase of up to 8% for universities in 2017 was not a binding decision, but rather a policy recommendation and plea to university councils, who retain the sole authority to set fees. No administrative or executive action had been taken by any respondent that could be reviewed or set aside. The applicants failed to establish any infringement of their constitutional rights or a basis for an interim interdict. The application was dismissed as the relief sought was not competent in law, and there was no justiciable decision before the court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.