South Africa Case Law

Rautenbach and Others v Governing Body of die Hoerskool DF Malan and Another (073/2024)

Rautenbach and Others v Governing Body of die Hoerskool DF Malan and Another (073/2024) [2025] ZASCA 78 (4 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

073/2024

Judges

Mokgohloa, Mbatha, Weiner, Smith, Modiba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the governing body of a public school has implied statutory power under the Schools Act to change the school's name, as part of its governance functions and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the school and its stakeholders. The consultative process adopted was comprehensive, rational, and followed expert advice, ensuring broad stakeholder participation and fair opportunity for input. The decision to change the school's name was rationally connected to the information before the governing body and aligned with the school's values of inclusivit…

Source excerpt

• Schools Act
• Ultra Vires
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Review
• Consultation Requirements
• Implied Powers

St Charles College v Du Hecquet De Rauville and Others (14307/15)

St Charles College v Du Hecquet De Rauville and Others (14307/15) [2017] ZAKZPHC 12; [2017] 3 All SA 358 (KZP) (12 April 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

14307/15

Judge

Jappie JP

The High Court declared a second respondent’s immovable property executable to satisfy unpaid school-fee debts after movable goods proved insufficient.

• Summary Judgment
• Writ Of Execution
• Primary Residence Attachment
• Unfair Discrimination
• Schools Act
• Constitutional Equality

Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education of the Government of the Eastern Cape Province and Another v Ed-U-College(PE)(Section21) (CCT26/00)

Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education of the Government of the Eastern Cape Province and Another v Ed-U-College(PE)(Section21) (CCT26/00) [2000] ZACC 23; 2001 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2001 (2) BCLR 118 (CC) (29 November 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT26/00

Judges

O'Regan, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga

The Constitutional Court held that the allocation of funds to education and independent schools in the Appropriation Act and White Book is legislative action, not administrative action, and thus not subject to review under section 33 of the Constitution. However, the determination of the subsidy formula and its implementation by the MEC under section 48(2) of the Schools Act is administrative action, as it involves the exercise of a statutory discretion within the constraints of the legislative budget. The Court found that while the respondent claimed a legitimate expectation to be heard befo…

Source excerpt

• Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Legitimate Expectation
• Budgetary Allocation
• Schools Act
• Judicial Review