Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:15:59Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:15:59Z
dc.date.created 2012-11-28 en
dc.identifier.citation [2013] ZACC 25
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (2) SA 228 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (9) BCLR 989 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3696
dc.title Head of Department, Department of Education Free State Province v Welkom High School and Another; Head of Department, Department of Education Free State Province v Harmony High School and Another (Equal Education and Centre for Child Law as Amici Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT103/12 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT103/12 en
dc.contributor.judge Khampepe J
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Zondo J dissenting judgment
dc.date.judgment 10 July 2013
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3696/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28714%20Kb%29-21150.pdf?sequence=25&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal against an interdict restraining the Free State Head of the Education Department (HOD) from instructing public-school principals to ignore learner pregnancy policies adopted by the schools’ governing bodies. The Court held that the governing bodies of public schools, pursuant to their powers under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996, have the power to adopt policies dealing with learner pregnancies. Provincial Education Departments have supervisory authority over the exercise of these powers, which must be exercised in accordance with the rule of law and the constraints imposed by the Schools Act. Because the HOD purported to override the schools’ policies by fiat rather than complying with the procedural constraints imposed by section 22 or approaching a court for relief, his conduct was unlawful and the interdicts were held to have been correctly granted. Nevertheless, the schools’ pregnancy policies were held to prima facie infringe the constitutional rights of pregnant learners to human dignity, to freedom from unfair discrimination and to receive a basic education. The schools were ordered to review their policies in the light of the requirements of the Constitution, the Schools Act and the considerations set out in the judgment, and to engage meaningfully with the HOD in the review process. The importance of cooperative governance between schools and the State in ensuring the realisation of the right to a basic education was emphasised. A dissenting minority would have upheld the appeal on the basis that the HOD was empowered and obliged to take the steps he did to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional policies. Judgment: Khampepe J (Moseneke DCJ and Van der Westhuizen J concurring). Separate concurrence: Froneman J and Skweyiya J (Moseneke DCJ and Van der Westhuizen J concurring). Minority: Zondo J (Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J and Nkabinde J concurring).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the SCA: Head of Department: Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Another, Head of Department: Department of Education, Free State Province v Harmony High School and Another (766/2011, 767/2011) [2012] ZASCA 150; 2012 (6) SA 525 (SCA); [2012] 4 All SA 614 (SCA) (28 September 2012). The case was previously heard in the Free State High Court: Welkom High School & another v Head, Department of Education, Free State Province and Another Case 2011 (4) SA 531 (FB).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account