Ramodibe v S (A80/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 271 (4 May 2020)

Ramodibe v S (A80/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 271 (4 May 2020)

The court found that the Alert Level 3 Regulations did not specifically exclude private pre-school institutions offering Early Childhood Development services from reopening. The directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education applied only to schools as defined in the Schools Act and did not cover private ECD centres regulated under the Children’s Act. The Minister of Social Development’s decision to keep private ECD centres closed was irrational, unlawful, and discriminatory, failing to meet constitutional standards, especially regarding the best interests of children. The court held that the Minister’s conduct in the litigation was unacceptable and fell short of the standards...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 271
Parties
Applicant: Skole-Ondersteuningsentrum NPC; Applicant: Bronkieland Kleuterskool; Applicant: Solidarity; Respondent: Minister of Social Development; Respondent: Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Basic Education
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2020
Case Number
24258/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion is granted subject to appropriate and/or prescribed safety measures. Punitive costs order against the first respondent.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Disaster Management Act, Early Childhood Development, Best Interests of Child, Irrationality of Executive Action, Unlawful Administrative Action, Costs Punitive Order
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Family and Children Disaster Management Act Early Childhood Development Best Interests of Child Irrationality of Executive Action Unlawful Administrative Action +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skole-Ondersteuningsentrum NPC

Applicant

Bronkieland Kleuterskool

Applicant

Solidarity

Applicant

Minister of Social Development

Respondent

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Minister of Basic Education

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether private pre-school institutions offering Early Childhood Development services (Grade R and lower) are entitled to re-open under Alert Level 3 Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the decision by the Minister of Social Development to keep the Early Childhood Development sector closed is unconstitutional and unlawful as it applies to private pre-schools.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the Minister of Social Development in the litigation process meets the required constitutional standards for matters affecting children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Alert Level 3 Regulations did not specifically exclude private pre-school institutions offering Early Childhood Development services from reopening. The directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education applied only to schools as defined in the Schools Act and did not cover private ECD centres regulated under the Children’s Act. The Minister of Social Development’s decision to keep private ECD centres closed was irrational, unlawful, and discriminatory, failing to meet constitutional standards, especially regarding the best interests of children. The court held that the Minister’s conduct in the litigation was unacceptable and fell short of the standards...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion is granted subject to appropriate and/or prescribed safety measures. Punitive costs order against the first respondent.

Orders

  • Private pre-school institutions offering Early Childhood Development services (Grade R and lower) are entitled to re-open immediately, subject to appropriate and/or prescribed safety measures.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicants and the amicus curiae on an attorney and client scale.