Toyi and Others v Nelson Mandela University (476/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 17 (30 March 2021)

Toyi and Others v Nelson Mandela University (476/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 17 (30 March 2021)

The Applicants failed to establish that the University refused them access to their marked examination scripts, as they did not apply for such access in accordance with University policy. There was no decision by the University compelling the Applicants to submit to a re-examination; rather, the opportunity was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 17
Parties
Applicant: Cebo Toyi; Applicant: Nsovo Mtileni; Applicant: Nkosinathi Mkansi; Applicant: Lutho Madlanga; Applicant: Hlulani Rivisi; Applicant: Igencious Nethavhani; Respondent: Nelson Mandela University
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
476/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application and Request for Postponement
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the First to Fifth and Tenth Applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
T Zietsman
Legal Topics
Review of University Decisions, Final Interdict, Examination Irregularities, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of University Decisions Final Interdict Examination Irregularities Procedural Fairness Costs in Constitutional Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cebo Toyi

Applicant

Nsovo Mtileni

Applicant

Nkosinathi Mkansi

Applicant

Lutho Madlanga

Applicant

Hlulani Rivisi

Applicant

Igencious Nethavhani

Applicant

Nelson Mandela University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application and Request for Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University refused the Applicants access to their marked examination scripts.
  2. 2 Whether the University directed the Applicants to submit themselves to a re-examination.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are entitled to have their January 2021 examination marks published and counted towards their degrees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to establish that the University refused them access to their marked examination scripts, as they did not apply for such access in accordance with University policy. There was no decision by the University compelling the Applicants to submit to a re-examination; rather, the opportunity was offered as a compassionate gesture pending the outcome of an investigation into examination irregularities. The application for review was premature, as no final decision regarding the Applicants' marks had been made. The Applicants also failed to satisfy the requirements for a final interdict regarding the safekeeping of their marked papers, as the University’s retention policy...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the First to Fifth and Tenth Applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The First to Fifth and Tenth Applicants are ordered to pay Respondent’s costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.