South African Council for Educators v Deon Scheepers and Others (CCT 127/22) [2023] ZACC 23; [2023] 10 BLLR 981 (CC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2191 (CC); 2024 (5) BCLR 663 (CC) (12 July 2023)

South African Council for Educators v Deon Scheepers and Others (CCT 127/22) [2023] ZACC 23; [2023] 10 BLLR 981 (CC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2191 (CC); 2024 (5) BCLR 663 (CC) (12 July 2023)

The Constitutional Court found that while the matter engaged its constitutional jurisdiction, the central issue was whether SACE had conducted a proper investigation before referring Mr Scheepers to a disciplinary hearing. The Court held that the adequacy of the investigation was a factual enquiry, not a constitutional issue warranting leave to appeal. The High Court's findings that SACE did not comply with mandatory enabling provisions and that its decision was procedurally unfair were based on the application of settled law to the facts. The Court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success and that the interests of justice did not warrant granting leave to appeal....

Citation
[2023] ZACC 23
Parties
Applicant: South African Council for Educators; Respondent: Deon Scheepers; Respondent: HOD: Department of Education Free State Province N.O.; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Education Free State Province N.O.
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2023
Case Number
CCT 127/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Baqwa AJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mbatha AJ, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Tshiqi J
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Investigation Requirements, Professional Ethics, Employment of Educators Act, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Labour Law Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness Investigation Requirements Professional Ethics Employment of Educators Act Review of Administrative Action

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Council for Educators

Applicant

Deon Scheepers

Respondent

HOD: Department of Education Free State Province N.O.

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Education Free State Province N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SACE conducted a proper investigation as required by law before referring Mr Scheepers to a disciplinary hearing.
  2. 2 Whether SACE's decision to refer charges was procedurally fair towards Mr Scheepers.
  3. 3 Whether SACE's decision was unduly influenced by the School Governing Body.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court found that while the matter engaged its constitutional jurisdiction, the central issue was whether SACE had conducted a proper investigation before referring Mr Scheepers to a disciplinary hearing. The Court held that the adequacy of the investigation was a factual enquiry, not a constitutional issue warranting leave to appeal. The High Court's findings that SACE did not comply with mandatory enabling provisions and that its decision was procedurally unfair were based on the application of settled law to the facts. The Court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success and that the interests of justice did not warrant granting leave to appeal....

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of two counsel.