Reynopark High School and Another v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Basiseducation Mpumalanga Province and Others (26424/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 970 (12 December 2014)

Reynopark High School and Another v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Basiseducation Mpumalanga Province and Others (26424/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 970 (12 December 2014)

The court found that the second respondent was not authorised to appoint the third and fourth respondents because the school governing body did not properly recommend them as required by section 6(3) of the Employment of Educators Act. The documentation showed that only Ms I L Ras and Mr J P Pistorius were recommended for the respective posts, and the statutory requirement of submitting a list of recommended candidates was not satisfied. Without the jurisdictional fact of recommendation, the Head of Department lacked discretion to appoint under section 6(3)(f). The appointments were therefore unlawful and subject to review under PAJA. The decision to appoint the third and fourth...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 970
Parties
Applicant: Reynopark High School; Applicant: The Governing Body of Reynopark High School; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council: Department of Basiseducation Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: Head of Department of Basic Education, Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: S M Nchabeleng; Respondent: K J Magagula
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Case Number
26424/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application granted; the appointments of the third and fourth respondents are reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Employment of Educators Act, Recommendation Requirement, Jurisdictional Facts, Review of Administrative Action, School Governing Body Powers
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Employment of Educators Act Recommendation Requirement Jurisdictional Facts Review of Administrative Action School Governing Body Powers

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reynopark High School

Applicant

The Governing Body of Reynopark High School

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council: Department of Basiseducation Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Head of Department of Basic Education, Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

S M Nchabeleng

Respondent

K J Magagula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent had authority to appoint the third and fourth respondents to the posts at the first applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the jurisdictional facts for recommendation by the school governing body were satisfied under the Employment of Educators Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appointments complied with the requirements of lawful administrative action under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent was not authorised to appoint the third and fourth respondents because the school governing body did not properly recommend them as required by section 6(3) of the Employment of Educators Act. The documentation showed that only Ms I L Ras and Mr J P Pistorius were recommended for the respective posts, and the statutory requirement of submitting a list of recommended candidates was not satisfied. Without the jurisdictional fact of recommendation, the Head of Department lacked discretion to appoint under section 6(3)(f). The appointments were therefore unlawful and subject to review under PAJA. The decision to appoint the third and fourth...

Court Disposition

Application granted; the appointments of the third and fourth respondents are reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The second respondent’s decision to appoint the third and fourth respondents as heads of departments of the first applicant in posts numbers 62032-0407 and 62032-0408 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicants’ costs.