South Africa Case Law

Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021)

Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021) [2022] ZASCA 119 (29 August 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

71/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Plasket, Hughes, Tsoka, Savage

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the version of the Minister and MECs, which was neither far-fetched nor uncreditworthy. The evidence showed that subsidies, excluding the nutrition component, continued to be paid to ECDs during the lockdown, and alternative measures were implemented to meet children's nutritional needs. The disputes of fact raised by the Minister and MECs were genuine and bona fide, and the respondents failed to establish a systemic breach of constitutional obligations. The relief granted by the High Cour…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Early Childhood Development
• Division Of Revenue Act
• Structural Interdict
• Disputes Of Fact On Motion
• Costs Orders

Minister of Social Development and Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (36962/2020)

Minister of Social Development and Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (36962/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 794 (14 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36962/2020

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court granted the Minister leave to appeal on a narrow question about a statutory and constitutional duty under DORA, but dismissed the MECs' leave application with costs.

• Division Of Revenue Act
• Conditional Grants
• Early Childhood Development
• Public Finance Management Act
• Statutory Duty
• Constitutional Duty

Ramodibe v S (A80/2018)

Ramodibe v S (A80/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 271 (4 May 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24258/2020

Judge

Fabricius

The court found that the Alert Level 3 Regulations did not specifically exclude private pre-school institutions offering Early Childhood Development services from reopening. The directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education applied only to schools as defined in the Schools Act and did not cover private ECD centres regulated under the Children’s Act. The Minister of Social Development’s decision to keep private ECD centres closed was irrational, unlawful, and discriminatory, failing to meet constitutional standards, especially regarding the best interests of children. The court held tha…

Source excerpt

• Disaster Management Act
• Early Childhood Development
• Best Interests Of Child
• Irrationality Of Executive Action
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Costs Punitive Order