South African Students Congress (SASCO) and Another v Walter Sisulu University and Others (EL1453/2016, ECD3553/2016) [2017] ZAECELLC 7; [2017] 2 All SA 921 (ELC) (30 March 2017)

South African Students Congress (SASCO) and Another v Walter Sisulu University and Others (EL1453/2016, ECD3553/2016) [2017] ZAECELLC 7; [2017] 2 All SA 921 (ELC) (30 March 2017)

The court found that the second applicant was disqualified from SRC office by operation of the SRC Constitution and disciplinary code, as his conviction for misconduct had not been set aside, expunged, or accompanied by a written statement from the disciplinary committee restoring his eligibility. The fourth respondent did not make a disqualifying decision but merely conveyed the existing disqualification. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not join the incumbent SRC president, who had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. The requirements for interim relief were not met, as the applicants had an alternative remedy in the review process and the balance...

Citation
[2017] ZAECELLC 7
Parties
Applicant: South African Students Congress (SASCO); Applicant: Sifiso Simon Ambrose Zwezwe; Respondent: Walter Sisulu University; Respondent: Nontando Ngamlama; Respondent: Zoleka Dotwana; Respondent: Vuyiseka Sizani-Matya; Respondent: Khaya Maphinda
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Case Number
EL1453/2016, ECD3553/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review and Interim Relief Applications
Outcome
Both the second application for interim relief and the review application are dismissed with costs, excluding the wasted costs of the application to compel.
Judges
Stretch
Legal Topics
Student Governance, Review of Administrative Action, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Joinder of Parties, Interim Interdict, Disciplinary Proceedings
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Student Governance Review of Administrative Action Internal Remedies Exhaustion Joinder of Parties Interim Interdict Disciplinary Proceedings

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Students Congress (SASCO)

Applicant

Sifiso Simon Ambrose Zwezwe

Applicant

Walter Sisulu University

Respondent

Nontando Ngamlama

Respondent

Zoleka Dotwana

Respondent

Vuyiseka Sizani-Matya

Respondent

Khaya Maphinda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review and Interim Relief Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth respondent, Sizani, was entitled in terms of the SRC Constitution to disqualify the second applicant from being deployed as SRC president.
  2. 2 Whether the decision to prevent the second applicant's deployment was reviewable under administrative law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant was disqualified from SRC office by operation of the SRC Constitution and disciplinary code, as his conviction for misconduct had not been set aside, expunged, or accompanied by a written statement from the disciplinary committee restoring his eligibility. The fourth respondent did not make a disqualifying decision but merely conveyed the existing disqualification. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not join the incumbent SRC president, who had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. The requirements for interim relief were not met, as the applicants had an alternative remedy in the review process and the balance...

Court Disposition

Both the second application for interim relief and the review application are dismissed with costs, excluding the wasted costs of the application to compel.

Orders

  • The second application for interim relief, delivered on 12 January 2017, is dismissed with costs, payable by the applicants jointly and severally.
  • The review application is dismissed with costs, excluding the wasted costs of the application to compel, payable by the applicants jointly and severally.