Nkhutha and Others v University of Johannesburg and Others (2025/189952) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1056 (22 October 2025)

Case Note

Applicants v University of Johannesburg 2025 (GJ) (15 October 2025)

Reportability

This judgment raises questions of considerable public importance concerning the limits of university disciplinary power in the face of student protest and the degree to which courts may intervene in incomplete domestic-tribunal proceedings. It revisits and applies the “exceptional circumstances” threshold first articulated in employment and administrative-law contexts, thereby extending and clarifying its operation in the higher-education sphere.

The decision is also significant because it evaluates precautionary suspension powers under section 36 of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 and measures the procedural fairness of such suspensions against constitutional guarantees of assembly, expression and due process. The ruling thus offers authoritative guidance both to universities crafting disciplinary regulations and to students seeking judicial relief while inquiries are still pending.

Finally, the judgment synthesises principles from Constitutional, Labour and Administrative Law authorities, providing a coherent doctrinal framework for future interlocutory challenges to disciplinary proceedings. Its detailed engagement with precedent renders it useful to scholars, practitioners and university administrators alike, justifying full reportability.

Cases Cited

Jiba v Minister: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2010 (31) ILJ 112 (Labour Court)

Dyantyi v Rhodes University 2023 (1) SA 32 (Supreme Court of Appeal)

Legislation Cited

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 — section 17

Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 — section 36

Rules of Court Cited

The judgment contains no explicit reference to specific Uniform Rules of Court.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The applicants, seven student leaders, sought urgent relief setting aside their precautionary suspensions and interdicting an upcoming disciplinary inquiry instituted by the University of Johannesburg. The suspensions arose from a 8 September 2025 sit-in at the student finance office protesting the withdrawal of government financial aid. While the University initially alleged violent conduct, it later relied solely on allegations of disruptive entry, door-banging and refusal to leave.

Before the High Court they contended that the Vice-Chancellor’s delegate lacked a reasonable basis to believe they posed a threat to the orderly academic process as required by section 5 of the University’s Regulations for Student Discipline. They therefore argued that “exceptional circumstances” existed for judicial intervention in incomplete disciplinary proceedings.

The Court held that the threshold for such intervention was not met. On the documentary material before the Registrar, a reasonable person could conclude that the applicants constituted a disruption warranting temporary suspension. Any factual disputes about exaggeration or motive must, the Court found, be resolved at the disciplinary hearing itself.

Key Issues

The judgment grapples with three principal questions. First, whether a court may intervene in internal disciplinary proceedings prior to their completion and, if so, under what “exceptional circumstances”. Second, whether the Registrar’s decision to suspend the applicants satisfied the objective-reasonableness requirement in section 5 of the University’s regulations. Third, whether the breadth of the suspensions and the continuation of the inquiry itself offend principles of legality and procedural fairness.

Held

The Court dismissed the application in its entirety. It ruled that the applicants had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting judicial interruption: the suspensions were founded on sufficient evidence and the inquiry appeared facially fair and lawful. Any overbreadth in the suspensions was not pleaded, and any future irregularities in the hearing could be remedied on review.

THE FACTS

On 8 September 2025 a group of financially-excluded students entered the University of Johannesburg’s student finance office demanding engagement over the sudden withdrawal of National Student Financial Aid Scheme support. The applicants, all prominent members of the Student Representative Council, led the group. The University’s administrators alleged that doors were banged, staff felt unsafe and retreated into locked offices, and campus security together with the police were summoned.

Following receipt of incident reports from finance-office staff and security personnel, the Registrar—acting under delegated authority from the Vice-Chancellor—invoked section 5 of the Regulations for Student Discipline and issued precautionary suspensions against each applicant. The suspensions barred them from residences, classes, examinations and SRC duties.

A disciplinary inquiry was scheduled for 22 October 2025. The applicants denied staging an occupation or using violence, maintaining they merely sought peaceful dialogue. They launched urgent court proceedings to lift the suspensions and interdict the inquiry, arguing that the University’s belief that they posed a threat to order was unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

THE ISSUES

The Court was required to decide, first, whether it possessed the discretionary power to halt or modify ongoing university disciplinary measures before their conclusion. This entailed determining the applicability and content of the “exceptional circumstances” test emerging from Jiba and similar case law.

Second, the Court had to assess whether the Registrar’s factual predicate for suspension met the standard of reasonable belief stipulated by section 5 of the Regulations for Student Discipline, bearing in mind the disputed facts and the constitutional context of protest.

Third, the Court was asked to pronounce on the lawfulness of the planned disciplinary inquiry itself, including whether the charges were colourable and whether there was any evidentiary indication that the process would be conducted unfairly.

ANALYSIS

The Court commenced by situating its task within the doctrine of judicial deference to domestic tribunals. Referring to Jiba, it underscored that intervention prior to completion of such proceedings is a drastic remedy to be employed only when grave unfairness is manifest. The Court considered this doctrine to apply with equal force to university disciplinary bodies empowered under section 36 of the Higher Education Act.

Turning to the suspensions, the Court emphasised that its role was not to resolve the competing factual narratives but to evaluate whether the Registrar could reasonably have formed the belief required by section 5. It found that staff affidavits describing attempted forced entry, staff fear and police attendance constituted ample material. Even if exaggerated, those statements satisfied the objective component of reasonableness; the truth of the allegations would be tested later at the inquiry.

The applicants’ counsel sought to shift focus toward the breadth of the suspensions, contending that complete exclusion from academic life was disproportionate. The Court acknowledged the potential overbreadth but held that such relief had neither been pleaded nor substantiated on affidavit, thereby rendering it inappropriate for determination. Moreover, with the inquiry date imminent, any marginal prejudice occasioned by the final days of suspension was insufficiently exceptional.

Regarding the interdict against the inquiry itself, the Court noted counsel’s concession that the charges were colourable and supported by evidence. It found no facts suggesting bias, procedural impropriety or irrationality likely to taint the hearing. Consequently, it declined to forestall internal processes, noting that review remedies would remain available should irregularities later materialise.

REMEDY

The application for urgent relief was dismissed in its entirety. The suspensions remained in force until the disciplinary hearing, and the University was permitted to proceed with the inquiry scheduled for 22 October 2025. No costs order was expressly recorded in the excerpt, but the Court’s reasoning suggests it was likely awarded against the applicants on the ordinary rule that costs follow the result.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reaffirms that courts possess a narrow residual power to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings, a power exercisable only in “truly exceptional circumstances” where manifest injustice looms.

It clarifies that the reasonableness of a precautionary suspension depends not on the ultimate truth of the allegations but on the presence of material that could reasonably ground the decision-maker’s belief that the student poses a threat to orderly processes, safety, or property.

Finally, it underscores the principle of institutional autonomy embodied in section 36 of the Higher Education Act: universities are entitled to regulate student conduct and discipline, subject to later judicial review for legality, rationality and procedural fairness, but ordinarily free from interlocutory judicial intrusion.