Mentornet (Pty) Ltd v Council on Higher Education and Others (82728/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 420 (15 June 2018)

Mentornet (Pty) Ltd v Council on Higher Education and Others (82728/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 420 (15 June 2018)

The court found that the review application had become academic, as Mentornet would need to submit fresh applications for accreditation that do not require evaluation against the criteria for higher education programmes in education. The application was not aimed at vindicating constitutional rights but rather at asserting a commercial interest. The proceedings were vexatious and manifestly inappropriate, especially after comprehensive records were produced. The applicant failed to utilize available procedural remedies to obtain further documents. Accordingly, the general rule that costs follow the event applied, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 420
Parties
Applicant: Mentornet (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Council on Higher Education; Respondent: Chairperson: Higher Education Quality Committee N.O.; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Education and Training N.O.; Respondent: Minister of Education and Training N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Case Number
82728/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Accreditation of Educational Programmes, Review of Administrative Action, Costs Award, Constitutional Rights Litigation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Accreditation of Educational Programmes Review of Administrative Action Costs Award Constitutional Rights Litigation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mentornet (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Council on Higher Education

Respondent

Chairperson: Higher Education Quality Committee N.O.

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Education and Training N.O.

Respondent

Minister of Education and Training N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Council on Higher Education to refuse accreditation of two new higher education programmes was reviewable under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to costs despite the application becoming academic.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or manifestly inappropriate, justifying a costs order against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the review application had become academic, as Mentornet would need to submit fresh applications for accreditation that do not require evaluation against the criteria for higher education programmes in education. The application was not aimed at vindicating constitutional rights but rather at asserting a commercial interest. The proceedings were vexatious and manifestly inappropriate, especially after comprehensive records were produced. The applicant failed to utilize available procedural remedies to obtain further documents. Accordingly, the general rule that costs follow the event applied, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.