Selepe v University of Johannesburg (2022/638) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1062 (21 April 2022)

Selepe v University of Johannesburg (2022/638) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1062 (21 April 2022)

The court found that the applicant was aware of the University's Mandatory Vaccination Policy prior to registration and had several options to comply, including vaccination, exemption application, or providing a negative PCR test. The applicant failed to pursue internal remedies and delayed nearly a month before launching the urgent application, which constituted self-created urgency. The University was not denying access unreasonably, as the applicant could access campus upon compliance with the policy. The court held that the applicant did not establish sufficient urgency or exhaust internal remedies, and that the application was an abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1062
Parties
Applicant: Lebohang Vincent Selepe; Respondent: University of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Case Number
2022/638
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Under Rule 6(12)(b)
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of urgency; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP
Legal Topics
Rule 6 Urgent Applications, Mandatory Vaccination Policy, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Disaster Management Act, Unlawful Policy Challenge
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rule 6 Urgent Applications Mandatory Vaccination Policy Internal Remedies Exhaustion Disaster Management Act Unlawful Policy Challenge

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebohang Vincent Selepe

Applicant

University of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Under Rule 6(12)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency to justify departure from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the University’s Mandatory Vaccination Policy is unlawful or unreasonable under current regulations and guidelines.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to access campus facilities without complying with the vaccination policy or seeking exemption.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware of the University's Mandatory Vaccination Policy prior to registration and had several options to comply, including vaccination, exemption application, or providing a negative PCR test. The applicant failed to pursue internal remedies and delayed nearly a month before launching the urgent application, which constituted self-created urgency. The University was not denying access unreasonably, as the applicant could access campus upon compliance with the policy. The court held that the applicant did not establish sufficient urgency or exhaust internal remedies, and that the application was an abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of urgency; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party and party scale.