South Africa Case Law

Educor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Council on Higher Education and Others (89420/19)

Educor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Council on Higher Education and Others (89420/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 963 (24 December 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89420/19

Judge

D S Fourie

The High Court refused an urgent interdict suspending non-accreditation decisions affecting private higher education programmes, finding no strong prima facie right or favourable balance of convenience.

• Interim Interdict
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes
• Separation Of Powers
• Ultra Vires
• Procedural Fairness

University of Limpopo v eNews Channel Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (30011/2019)

University of Limpopo v eNews Channel Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (30011/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 329 (10 September 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30011/2019

Judge

Twala M L

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the alleged reputational harm was speculative and not substantiated by real evidence. The respondents' programme was based on thorough investigation and interviews with all relevant parties, and the information to be broadcast was not shown to be false or misleading. The public interest in the broadcast, particularly regarding the use of public funds and the conduct of a public institution, outweighed any minimal potential prejudice to the applicant. The applicant had an alternative remedy in t…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Interim Interdict
• Defamation
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Public Interest
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes

Nyume and Another v Walter Sisulu University and Others (580/19)

Nyume and Another v Walter Sisulu University and Others (580/19) [2019] ZAECMHC 12 (20 February 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

580/19

Judge

Mbenenge JP

The court held that it was precluded from considering the merits of the application for an interlocutory interdict due to the non-joinder of other students registered for the degree in question. These students have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, and any order granted would materially affect their rights. The application was not brought as a class action nor founded on constitutional provisions, but rather on contract. Until the necessary parties are joined, the court cannot proceed to determine the substantive issues. Costs were awarded against the applicants for the oppose…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Interlocutory Interdict
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes
• Contractual Relationship

Mentornet (Pty) Ltd v Council on Higher Education and Others (82728/2016)

Mentornet (Pty) Ltd v Council on Higher Education and Others (82728/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 420 (15 June 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82728/2016

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The High Court dismissed Mentornet’s PAJA review of the refusal to accredit two education programmes and ordered costs against the applicant.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Costs Award
• Constitutional Rights Litigation
• Administrative-law

SANTS Private Higher Education Institution v The Chairperson of the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education (51588/2015)

SANTS Private Higher Education Institution v The Chairperson of the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education (51588/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 791 (20 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51588/2015

Judge

D S Fourie

The court found that the decision of the Higher Education Quality Committee to withdraw accreditation of SANTS' B.Ed Programmes was made in ignorance of material facts, specifically the true recommendation of Dr Govender, which was incorrectly recorded and not properly considered by the committee. The committee minutes contained mistakes that were passed on to the HEQC, resulting in a decision based on erroneous information. The doctrine of legality and the right to just administrative action require that such decisions be made on the basis of true facts. Consequently, the decision was unlawf…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Material Error Of Fact
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes
• Just And Equitable Remedy