Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014) [2015] ZASCA 198; [2016] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 63 (SCA) (2 December 2015)

Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014) [2015] ZASCA 198; [2016] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 63 (SCA) (2 December 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right to basic education under section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is immediately realisable and includes the entitlement of every learner to receive a prescribed textbook for each subject before the commencement of the academic year. The Department of Basic Education had adopted a clear national policy to this effect and had implemented it in other provinces. The failure to deliver textbooks to all learners in Limpopo, particularly those from poor and rural communities, constituted a violation of their rights to basic education, equality, and dignity. The Department's reliance on logistical challenges, inaccurate data, and budgetary constraints...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 198
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Basic Education; Appellant: Director-General of Basic Education; Appellant: Member of the Executive Council, Limpopo Department of Education; Appellant: Acting Head of Department, Limpopo Department of Education; Appellant: Head of the Intervention Team, Limpopo Department of Education; Respondent: Basic Education For All; Respondent: School Governing Body, Tlame Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Mareseleng Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Arethabeng Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Gadabi Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Mankopodi Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Shakoleng Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Tswetlane Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Davhana Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Tsogang Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Schoongezicht Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Sejadipudi Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Vhulaudzi Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Tshinavhe Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Mokobola Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Mashilompane Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Khudugane Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Tshehlwaneng Senior Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, TshabadiEtla Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Makala Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Rebone Secondary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Thorometsane Primary School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Sekaba Secondary School; Respondent: South African Human Rights Commission
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2015
Case Number
20793/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; declaratory and substituted orders granted confirming the state's obligation to provide textbooks and its breach of previous court orders.
Judges
Navsa, Lewis, Cachalia, Petse, Dambuza
Legal Topics
Right to Basic Education, Equality and Non Discrimination, State Obligations, Separation of Powers, Public Administration, School Textbook Delivery
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Basic Education Equality and Non Discrimination State Obligations Separation of Powers Public Administration School Textbook Delivery

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Basic Education

Appellant

Director-General of Basic Education

Appellant

Member of the Executive Council, Limpopo Department of Education

Appellant

Acting Head of Department, Limpopo Department of Education

Appellant

Head of the Intervention Team, Limpopo Department of Education

Appellant

Basic Education For All

Respondent

School Governing Body, Tlame Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Mareseleng Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Arethabeng Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Gadabi Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Mankopodi Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Shakoleng Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Tswetlane Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Davhana Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Tsogang Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Schoongezicht Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Sejadipudi Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Vhulaudzi Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Tshinavhe Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Mokobola Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Mashilompane Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Khudugane Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Tshehlwaneng Senior Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, TshabadiEtla Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Makala Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Rebone Secondary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Thorometsane Primary School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Sekaba Secondary School

Respondent

South African Human Rights Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the right to basic education under section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution require the state to provide every learner with a prescribed textbook for each subject before the commencement of the academic year?
  2. 2 Did the Department of Basic Education and Limpopo Department of Education violate learners' rights to basic education, equality, and dignity by failing to deliver all prescribed textbooks?
  3. 3 Is the state's failure to deliver textbooks justified by budgetary constraints or the doctrine of separation of powers?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right to basic education under section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is immediately realisable and includes the entitlement of every learner to receive a prescribed textbook for each subject before the commencement of the academic year. The Department of Basic Education had adopted a clear national policy to this effect and had implemented it in other provinces. The failure to deliver textbooks to all learners in Limpopo, particularly those from poor and rural communities, constituted a violation of their rights to basic education, equality, and dignity. The Department's reliance on logistical challenges, inaccurate data, and budgetary constraints...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; declaratory and substituted orders granted confirming the state's obligation to provide textbooks and its breach of previous court orders.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.
  • The cross-appeal in relation to the failure by the court below to declare that there had been non-compliance by the Department of Basic Education with the court order granted by Kollapen J is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel.