Moela and Another v Habib and Another (2020/9215) [2020] ZAGPJHC 69 (19 March 2020)

Moela and Another v Habib and Another (2020/9215) [2020] ZAGPJHC 69 (19 March 2020)

The court found that the University acted in accordance with expert advice, government strategy, and all recommended protocols from the WHO, NICD, and national authorities. The Vice-Chancellor and Dean do not have the authority or capacity to arrange mass testing for SARS COV-19, and such testing is governed by NICD protocols requiring symptoms. The relief sought by the applicants was not feasible, enforceable, or supported by law, as the applicants failed to establish any violation of their constitutional rights or a reasonable apprehension of harm. The University’s decision to close residences and suspend academic activities was reasonable, responsible, and in the best interests of the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Lerato Moela; Applicant: Matsobane Shaun Matlhwana; Respondent: Adam Habib (Vice-Chancellor: University of the Witwatersrand); Respondent: Jerome September (Dean of Students: University of the Witwatersrand)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Case Number
2020/9215
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
S E Weiner
Legal Topics
Right to Life, Right to Health Care, University Pandemic Response, Urgent Interdict, Administrative Decision Making
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Life Right to Health Care University Pandemic Response Urgent Interdict Administrative Decision Making

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

Parties

Lerato Moela

Applicant

Matsobane Shaun Matlhwana

Applicant

Adam Habib (Vice-Chancellor: University of the Witwatersrand)

Respondent

Jerome September (Dean of Students: University of the Witwatersrand)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University is legally obliged to test all students for SARS COV-19 before requiring them to vacate residences.
  2. 2 Whether the University acted negligently or recklessly in its response to the pandemic.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' constitutional rights to life and access to health care were violated by the University's directive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the University acted in accordance with expert advice, government strategy, and all recommended protocols from the WHO, NICD, and national authorities. The Vice-Chancellor and Dean do not have the authority or capacity to arrange mass testing for SARS COV-19, and such testing is governed by NICD protocols requiring symptoms. The relief sought by the applicants was not feasible, enforceable, or supported by law, as the applicants failed to establish any violation of their constitutional rights or a reasonable apprehension of harm. The University’s decision to close residences and suspend academic activities was reasonable, responsible, and in the best interests of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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