Minister of Basic Education and Others v Mkhonto and Others (A70/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 112 (19 November 2025)

Case Note

Kgotaso Neo Molapo and Others v Department of Basic Education
[2025] ZANWHC 8
Delivered: 19 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for the administrative processes within the South African education system, particularly regarding the release of examination results and the impact of administrative justice as governed by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The case addresses the procedural requirements for exhausting internal remedies before pursuing judicial review and clarifies the court's role in adjudicating administrative decisions, emphasizing a fair balance between administrative authority and the rights of affected individuals.

Cases Cited

• Hall v Van Tonder 1980 (1) SA 908 (C)
• Asla Construction (Pty) Limited v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (894/2016) [2017] ZASCA 23
• Colman v Dunbar 1933 AD 141
• Moseme Road Construction CC & Others v King Civil Engineering Contractors (Pty) Ltd & Another [2010] ZASCA 13
• Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others [2009] ZACC 23
• Member of the Executive Council for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape and Another v Plotz NO and Another [2017] ZASCA 175

Legislation Cited

• Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
• Regulations regarding the conduct, administration, and management of the National Senior Certificate examinations (Annexure M)

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rules of the High Court, Rule 49

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment examines the appeal regarding the withholding of National Senior Certificate examination results from a group of learners following allegations of mass cheating. The court addressed procedural aspects surrounding the exhaustion of internal remedies under PAJA before seeking judicial review. Ultimately, it was determined that the appeal had been appropriately prosecuted within the stipulated time frame, and the court ruled in favor of the appellant, dismissing the previous order compelling the release of examination results.

Key Issues

The legal issues addressed in this case primarily revolve around administrative law principles, particularly the necessity of exhausting internal administrative remedies before resorting to judicial review. The court also examined the implications of newly presented evidence during the appeal and the procedural integrity of administrative actions.

Held

The court held that the prior application for judicial review had not met the required procedures as per PAJA, particularly regarding the exhaustion of internal remedies. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the order of the court a quo was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the initial application for the release of the examination results.

THE FACTS

The case centers around 896 learners whose results were withheld by the Department of Basic Education following allegations of mass cheating during the National Senior Certificate examinations. After internal disciplinary processes, a subset of 510 learners initiated review proceedings under PAJA against the Department, seeking an order for the release of their results. The court a quo ruled in favor of the learners, but the Department subsequently appealed, arguing that the learners failed to exhaust internal remedies before seeking judicial review.

The appeal raised preliminary issues, particularly regarding the lapse of the appeal due to failure to prosecute it within the designated time frame as required by Rule 49 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court. The Appellants argued that the appeal had been properly noted and prosecuted, and issues regarding the completeness of the record were examined.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the appeal was properly prosecuted within the stipulated time frames, the validity of the Respondents' arguments regarding the lapse of appeal proceedings, and whether the administrative remedies concerning the disciplinary actions taken against learners had been exhausted before approaching the court for judicial review.

The admissibility of newly presented evidence during the appeal was also at issue, focusing on the procedural criteria for introducing such evidence under South African law. Furthermore, the court grappled with the implications of failing to adhere to internal administrative processes as outlined in PAJA.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis began by clarifying the requirements for prosecuting an appeal under the Uniform Rules. It noted that the Appellants had acted within the required time frames and rebuffed the Respondents' claims regarding the lapse of the appeal. The analysis also touched on the importance of adhering strictly to internal review processes as a pillar of administrative justice.

This aspect was vital to maintaining the integrity of the educational system, ensuring that all allegations of misconduct were rectified through proper channels before escalating matters to the courts. The court stressed that administrative bodies must be afforded the opportunity to resolve disputes internally, reflecting the principles of separation of powers that underpin administrative law.

The court further examined the Respondents' attempt to introduce new evidence pertaining to the exoneration of a teacher implicated in the examination irregularities. It ruled that without a formal application to supplement the record as per the requirements of the Superior Courts Act, the court could not consider this evidence. The rejection of such evidence underscored the importance of upholding procedural integrity during judicial reviews.

REMEDY

The court upheld the appeal and substituted the order of the court a quo, thus dismissing the application for the release of the examination results withheld from the learners. No costs order was sought or levied against the Respondents, taking into account their age and circumstances, alongside the nature of the matter.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this case include the necessity of exhausting internal remedies before seeking judicial review under PAJA, underscoring administrative bodies' roles and responsibilities in rectifying disputes prior to court involvement. Additionally, the court emphasized the rigid procedural requirements for introducing new evidence in appeals, reiterating that assertions made during argumentation cannot substitute formal evidentiary requirements established by law. The balance between individual rights and administrative authority was also a focal point in the court's reasoning, highlighting the need for accountability within educational frameworks while ensuring fairness in assessment.