South Africa Case Law

Ngobeni v University of Pretoria and Others (012911/2025)

Ngobeni v University of Pretoria and Others (012911/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 455 (5 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

012911/2025

Judge

Francis-Subbiah

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief, as she did not dispute the core factual basis for her exclusion—repeated academic failures as set out by the respondents. The alleged harm of losing an academic year does not constitute irreparable harm, as compensation or redress can be sought if the review succeeds. The applicant has an alternative remedy through the pending judicial review. The relief sought is final in effect and would alter, not preserve, the status quo, potentially causing irreversible consequences and prejudice to the university’s academic int…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Interim Interdict
• Exclusion From Academic Program
• Judicial Review
• Urgency
• University Governance

Le Roux v Stellenbosch University and Others (24729/2024)

Le Roux v Stellenbosch University and Others (24729/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 85 (3 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

24729/2024

Judge

L G Nuku

The High Court dismissed a review of a student election disqualification, holding that the challenge attacked the merits rather than showing unreasonableness under PAJA.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Student Elections
• Unreasonableness Review
• University Governance
• Administrative-law
• Paja-review

Ngcamphalala v University of Mpumalanga and Others (2307/2018)

Ngcamphalala v University of Mpumalanga and Others (2307/2018) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 31 (18 March 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2307/2018

Judge

Mashile

The court found that the university failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to present his case at the disciplinary hearing, violating the audi alteram partem rule. The expulsion decision was not rationally connected to the evidence, as the applicant acted within his mandate as SRC President and did not instigate unlawful protests. The university's own Statute and Constitution recognize the SRC's role, and the evidence did not support the conclusion that the applicant was solely responsible for the protests. The disciplinary committee's eagerness to proceed in the applicant's absence, d…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Irrationality
• Unreasonableness
• Student Discipline
• University Governance

University of the Free State v Dlanjwa and Others (919/2017)

University of the Free State v Dlanjwa and Others (919/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 152 (18 September 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

919/2017

Judge

Mhlambi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the first respondent incited or led unlawful protest action. The respondent's version, supported by affidavits and annexures, was credible and not so far-fetched as to be rejected on the papers. The only conduct attributed to the first respondent was the handing over of the memorandum, which was insufficient to justify a final interdict. The applicant conceded that the respondent assisted in calming the situation and that there was no evidence of direct involvement in disruptive acts. Accordingly, the requirements for a final interdict w…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Final Interdict
• Student Protest Action
• University Governance
• Joinder Of Parties

Concerned Association of Parents and Others for Tertiary Education at Universities v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and Another (4976/2016)

Concerned Association of Parents and Others for Tertiary Education at Universities v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and Another (4976/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 136 (10 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4976/2016

Judge

M L Beard

Urgent application dismissed where parents sought to compel NMMU to resume classes amid #FeesMustFall protests; court found the order too broad and inequitable.

• Specific Performance
• Mandatory Interdict
• Judicial Discretion
• University Governance
• Fiduciary Duties
• Protest Action