South Africa Case Law

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023)

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Windell, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Right To Education
• Mandamus Relief
• Declaratory Relief
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

University of Cape Town v Villo and Others (2025/037004)

University of Cape Town v Villo and Others (2025/037004) [2025] ZAWCHC 262 (13 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/037004

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court found that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) does not apply to student accommodation, as established by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Stay At South Point Properties. Student accommodation is temporary, purpose-specific, and subject to annual rotation, and does not constitute a 'home' for PIE purposes. The respondents had no current right to occupy the residence, as none were allocated placement for the 2025 academic year and most were not registered students. UCT demonstrated ownership and the absence of any enforceable right of occup…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Student Accommodation
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Education
• Common Law Ejectment
• Higher Education Policy

Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/095869; 13361/2023; 120464/2023; 128616/2023)

Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/095869; 13361/2023; 120464/2023; 128616/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 374 (8 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/095869

Judge

Mudau

The court found that the City of Johannesburg's public participation process in adopting the 2023/2024 Rates Policy and By-Law was perfunctory and failed to meet constitutional and statutory requirements. The City did not genuinely consider stakeholders' input, particularly regarding the impact on privately owned educational institutions. The categorisation of such properties under 'business and commercial' was irrational and unreasonably discriminatory, violating section 19(1)(c) of the MPRA and sections 28 and 29 of the Constitution. The City failed to consider the best interests of childre…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Public Participation
• Irrationality
• Unreasonable Discrimination
• Right To Education
• Best Interests Of Child

Ngwenya v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2023/04233)

Ngwenya v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2023/04233) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1153 (8 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/04233

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that the confiscation of the applicant's laptop was unlawful because the indemnity signed only permitted confiscation of the modem, not the laptop, and no policy or regulation was cited to justify the laptop's removal. The disciplinary hearing was procedurally defective: the applicant was not properly informed, did not receive written reasons, and was penalised twice for the same alleged offence, contrary to the Mandela Rules. The disciplinary charge of 'misuse of computer' is not a listed infringement under s 23 of the Correctional Services Act, and the evidence relied upon w…

Source excerpt

• Prisoner Rights
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Right To Education
• Mandela Rules
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion

P.M and Others v S (A59/2024)

P.M and Others v S (A59/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 875 (9 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A59/2024

Judge

M V Noko

The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The impact of detention on health and education, while relevant, did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances in this case, especially as the state provides services and any shortcomings should be addressed through administrative channels rather than bail. The seriousness of the charges and the legislative framework governing bail for schedule 6 offences justified continued detention. The court found no error in the reasoning or discretio…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Children In Conflict With Law
• Right To Education
• Right To Health
• Presumption Of Innocence

Manjiya v Walter Sisulu University and Another (1409/2024)

Manjiya v Walter Sisulu University and Another (1409/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 76 (3 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1409/2024

Judge

Kunju

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for urgency and for an interim interdict. The application was brought after the registration period for the 2024 academic year had closed and the academic syllabus had progressed substantially. The applicant delayed in prosecuting the matter, undermining any claim to urgency. The relief sought would require the university to create a special academic program and relax its regulations for one student, causing significant administrative inconvenience and prejudice to the respondent. The balance of convenience did not favour t…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Urgency
• University Exclusion
• Right To Education
• Balance Of Convenience

Kramer and Another v Minister of Justice, Constitutional Development and Correctional Services and Others (2023/126318)

Kramer and Another v Minister of Justice, Constitutional Development and Correctional Services and Others (2023/126318) [2024] ZAGPJHC 15 (9 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/126318

Judge

Pullinger AJ

The court found that the applicants had established exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm as required by section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. The Supreme Court of Appeal's interim order was specifically designed to protect the applicants' constitutional right to further education during the period before a new policy is promulgated. The respondents failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm that would result from implementing the interim order, while the applicants would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of study time and academic opportunity. The court rejected the respo…

Source excerpt

• Right To Education
• Contempt Of Court
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Interim Enforcement
• Prisoners Rights

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Wilhelm Pretorius and Others (440/2022)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Wilhelm Pretorius and Others (440/2022) [2023] ZASCA 155 (17 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

440/2022

Judges

Dambuza, Meyer, Matojane, Goosen, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed as moot an appeal over prisoners’ use of personal computers for study, relying on its earlier Ntuli judgment.

• Mootness
• Right To Education
• Unfair Discrimination
• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Prisoners-rights
• Right-to-education

Melane v Deputy Registrar: Governance & Legal Services of Fort Hare University and (264/2022)

Melane v Deputy Registrar: Governance & Legal Services of Fort Hare University and (264/2022) [2023] ZAECBHC 19 (8 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

264/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the issues at hand related to the applicant's right to education under section 29 of the Constitution and the principle of legality or just administrative action. The founding affidavit relied on sections 29 and 33 of the Constitution, and the interim relief sought was to prevent ongoing infringement of these rights. The matter was therefore properly located in a constitutional setting and qualified as a genuine constitutional challenge. The court considered whether any exceptions to the Biowatch rule applied, such as frivolous or vexatious litigation or improper conduct.…

Source excerpt

• Right To Education
• Biowatch Costs Rule
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Interim Relief
• Just Administrative Action

United Democratic Movement and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others

United Democratic Movement and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 280; 005779/2023 (5 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

005779/2023

Judges

N Davis, C Collis, S Nyathi

The court found that loadshedding at public health establishments, schools, and police stations without sufficient alternative energy sources infringes constitutional rights to healthcare, education, and security. The State and its organs have breached both constitutional and statutory duties by failing to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply to these institutions. The applicants established a clear right and acts of interference, satisfying requirements for both interim and final interdicts. The court held that judicial intervention is justified and does not breach the separation of power…

Source excerpt

• Right To Healthcare
• Right To Education
• Right To Security
• Separation Of Powers
• Interdicts
• State Obligations