Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021) [2022] ZASCA 119 (29 August 2022)

Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021) [2022] ZASCA 119 (29 August 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the version of the Minister and MECs, which was neither far-fetched nor uncreditworthy. The evidence showed that subsidies, excluding the nutrition component, continued to be paid to ECDs during the lockdown, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 119
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Social Development; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Eastern Cape; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Gauteng; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Free State; Appellant: MEC, Social Development KwaZulu-Natal; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Limpopo; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Mpumalanga; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Northern Cape; Appellant: MEC, Social Development Northwest; Respondent: SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Centre for Early Childhood Development NPC; Respondent: Reverend Tembela Magadla; Respondent: Busy Bee Creche and Playschool; Respondent: Soshanguve for Early Childhood Development Forum; Respondent: Bonang Day Care Centre; Respondent: Communities, Children and Responsible Care Organisation; Respondent: Feed the Babies Fund; Respondent: Minister of Finance
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2022
Case Number
71/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application.
Judges
Ponnan, Plasket, Hughes, Tsoka, Savage
Legal Topics
Bill of Rights Limitation, Early Childhood Development, Division of Revenue Act, Structural Interdict, Disputes of Fact on Motion, Costs Orders
Constitutional Law Family and Children Civil Procedure Bill of Rights Limitation Early Childhood Development Division of Revenue Act Structural Interdict Disputes of Fact on Motion +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Minister of Social Development

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Eastern Cape

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Gauteng

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Free State

Appellant

MEC, Social Development KwaZulu-Natal

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Limpopo

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Mpumalanga

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Northern Cape

Appellant

MEC, Social Development Northwest

Appellant

SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Centre for Early Childhood Development NPC

Respondent

Reverend Tembela Magadla

Respondent

Busy Bee Creche and Playschool

Respondent

Soshanguve for Early Childhood Development Forum

Respondent

Bonang Day Care Centre

Respondent

Communities, Children and Responsible Care Organisation

Respondent

Feed the Babies Fund

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister and MECs breached constitutional obligations regarding payment of subsidies to Early Childhood Development (ECD) facilities during the COVID-19 lockdown.
  2. 2 Whether the factual disputes raised in the affidavits justified the declaratory and structural relief granted by the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the punitive costs order against the Minister and MECs was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the version of the Minister and MECs, which was neither far-fetched nor uncreditworthy. The evidence showed that subsidies, excluding the nutrition component, continued to be paid to ECDs during the lockdown, and alternative measures were implemented to meet children's nutritional needs. The disputes of fact raised by the Minister and MECs were genuine and bona fide, and the respondents failed to establish a systemic breach of constitutional obligations. The relief granted by the High Court was not justified on the facts, and the punitive costs order was unwarranted. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed.'