Ndlovu and Others v Mangosuthu University of Technology and Others (D8841/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 19 (28 April 2023)

Ndlovu and Others v Mangosuthu University of Technology and Others (D8841/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 19 (28 April 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the challenged sections of the university’s general rules and disciplinary code were unconstitutional or unlawful. The suspensions and expulsions were effected in accordance with the university’s disciplinary procedures, which provide for precautionary suspension and do not require prior opportunity to make representations. There is no general constitutional right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, but the presiding officer retains discretion to allow it in serious or complex cases. The applicants did not demonstrate that they requested legal representation and were refused. The limitations on meetings and...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZDHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Makaziwe Nqobile Ndlovu; Applicant: Smangaliso Khumalo; Applicant: Sibonelo Fanele Thabethe; Applicant: Sisekelo Jona; Applicant: Thembinkosi Ngobese; Applicant: Sisekelo Jiyane; Applicant: Thulasizwe Mdletshe; Applicant: Langalethu McDonald Malanda; Applicant: Zamile Funda; Applicant: Mthokozisi Eric Gumede; Applicant: Sindiswa Anaid Mthembu; Applicant: Siboniso Sicelo Ntshaba; Applicant: Lungelo Shezi; Applicant: Bandile Lungani Nyandeni; Applicant: Mthobisi Mavundla; Applicant: Bandile Khambule; Applicant: Mthokozisi Sibiya; Applicant: Codesa Cyril Gwala; Applicant: Sabelo Innocent Magoso; Respondent: Mangosuthu University of Technology; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: National Student Financial Aid Scheme; Respondent: Prof M. M. Ramogale (Acting Vice-Chancellor and Principal); Respondent: Student’s Disciplinary Committee; Respondent: Chairperson of the Student’s Disciplinary Committee: Dean of Students - Dr T Kweyama
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Case Number
D8841/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Part A: Interim and Constitutional Relief; Part B (review) Not Yet Ripe
Outcome
Part A of the application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Nicholson AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Disciplinary Procedure, Student Rights, Constitutional Invalidity, Right to Education, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Disciplinary Procedure Student Rights Constitutional Invalidity Right to Education +1 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makaziwe Nqobile Ndlovu

Applicant

Smangaliso Khumalo

Applicant

Sibonelo Fanele Thabethe

Applicant

Sisekelo Jona

Applicant

Thembinkosi Ngobese

Applicant

Sisekelo Jiyane

Applicant

Thulasizwe Mdletshe

Applicant

Langalethu McDonald Malanda

Applicant

Zamile Funda

Applicant

Mthokozisi Eric Gumede

Applicant

Sindiswa Anaid Mthembu

Applicant

Siboniso Sicelo Ntshaba

Applicant

Lungelo Shezi

Applicant

Bandile Lungani Nyandeni

Applicant

Mthobisi Mavundla

Applicant

Bandile Khambule

Applicant

Mthokozisi Sibiya

Applicant

Codesa Cyril Gwala

Applicant

Sabelo Innocent Magoso

Applicant

Mangosuthu University of Technology

Respondent

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

National Student Financial Aid Scheme

Respondent

Prof M. M. Ramogale (Acting Vice-Chancellor and Principal)

Respondent

Student’s Disciplinary Committee

Respondent

Chairperson of the Student’s Disciplinary Committee: Dean of Students - Dr T Kweyama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Part A: Interim and Constitutional Relief; Part B (review) Not Yet Ripe

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified sections of the university’s disciplinary code and general rules are unconstitutional or unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants’ suspensions and expulsions violated their constitutional rights to dignity, peaceful protest, and education.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedures failed to comply with PAJA and the Constitution, particularly regarding notice, representation, and fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the challenged sections of the university’s general rules and disciplinary code were unconstitutional or unlawful. The suspensions and expulsions were effected in accordance with the university’s disciplinary procedures, which provide for precautionary suspension and do not require prior opportunity to make representations. There is no general constitutional right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, but the presiding officer retains discretion to allow it in serious or complex cases. The applicants did not demonstrate that they requested legal representation and were refused. The limitations on meetings and...

Court Disposition

Part A of the application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Part A of the application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.