Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:15:44Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:15:44Z
dc.date.created 2012-08-08 en
dc.identifier.citation [2013] ZACC 10
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (4) SA 262 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (6) BCLR 615 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3683
dc.title Kwazulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council Department of Education Kwazulu-Natal and Other (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT60/12 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT60/12 en
dc.contributor.judge Cameron J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Nkabinde J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Zondo J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 25 April 2013
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3683/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28511%20Kb%29-20767.pdf?sequence=18&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court that a departmental notice to independent schools setting out “approximate” funding levels for the financial year did not give rise to an enforceable undertaking to pay the entire year’s subsidy, without reduction. The majority agreed with the High Court that the notice did not give rise to a contract between the schools and the Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal (Department). It nonetheless constituted a publicly-promulgated promise to pay. A public official who promises to pay specified amounts to named recipients cannot unilaterally reduce the amounts to be paid after the due date for their payment has passed. The Court therefore ordered the Department to pay the applicant schools the approximate amounts which had already fallen due. In a separate concurrence, Froneman J agreed with the main judgment but held that the reasoning also applied to payment promised for the whole of the year and that the notice constituted an enforceable claim in the law of contract. In a dissenting judgment, Nkabinde J agreed that leave to appeal should be granted, but held that the appeal should be dismissed. In a separate dissent, Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J would have refused leave to appeal but agreed with the rest of Nkabinde J’s judgment. In a further separate dissent, Zondo J would have refused leave to appeal. Majority: Cameron J (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Skweyiya J and Yacoob J concurring). Dissent: Nkabinde J. Dissent: Zondo J (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring). Dissent: Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J (Zondo J concurring).
dc.concourt.casehistory The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account