About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAGPPHC 114
|
|
Section 27 and Others v Minister of Education and Another (24565/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 114; [2012] 3 All SA 579 (GNP); 2013 (2) BCLR 237 (GNP); 2013 (2) SA 40 (GNP) (17 May 2012)
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 24565/2012
DATE:
2012-05-17
In
the matter between
SECTION
27 AND 2
OTHERS
....................................................................................
Applicants
and
MINISTER
OF EDUCATION AND
ANOTHER
........................................................
Respondents
JUDGMENT
KOLLAPEN
J:
(1)
Most societies, ours included, place a high premium on education. Not
only is it the means by which individuals are able to
fulfil their
potential, it also provides in a wider sense the basis for
development and upliftment. Accordingly in the context
of
International Human Rights Law, and increasingly in the context of
National Legal Systems, it is not a privilege but a right,
creating
with it duties and obligations and where the right is violated,
activating the need to craft appropriate remedies.
(2)
In South Africa education is recognised both as an important policy
imperative that Government has committed itself to, as well
as a
central and interlocking right in the architecture of the rights
frame work in the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution
contains a commitment to "Improve the quality of life of all
citizens and free the potential of each person".
(3)
Education is critical in both freeing and unlocking the potential of
each person. Section 29 of the Constitution provides as
follows:
"Everyone has the right to;
(a)
To basic education, including adult basic education (b)To further
education which the State through reasonable measures must
make
progressively available and accessible."
(4)
The right to education however, is not a stand-alone right but it is
a means through which other rights are realised. General
comment
number 13, on the right to education, in respect of Article 13 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
rights,
captures the foundational character of the right as follows;
"Education
is both a human right in itself and an indispensible means of
realizing other human rights. As an empowerment right,
education is
the primary vehicle by which economically and socially, marginalized
adults and children can lift themselves out of
poverty and obtain the
means to participate fully in their communities. Education has a
vital role in empowering women, safeguarding
children from hazardous
labour and social exploitation, promoting human rights and democracy
and protecting the environment and
controlling the population
growth."
(5)
In the South African context the comment is apposite, if regard be
had to the history of an unequal and inappropriate educational
system, foisted on millions of South Africans for so long, and the
stark disparities that existed and continue to exist in so many
areas
and sectors of our society. Education takes on an even greater
significance. It becomes at the makro level an indispensible
tool in
the transformational imperatives that the Constitution contemplates
and at the micro level it is almost a sine qua non
to the self
determination of each person and his or her ability to live a life of
dignity and participate fully in the affairs
of society.
(6)
This case concerns the right to basic education and in particular the
issue of the provision of text books to learners. The
parties to the
application are described in the papers. The first applicant is an
organisation known as Section 27. It describes
itself as a public
interest law centre that seeks to influence, develop and use the law
to protect, promote and advance human rights.
It brings this
application in its own name as well as in the public interest.
(7)
The second applicant is Dijannane Tumo Secondary School. A secondary
school in the Tumo Village, Mopane district and it is a
school
attended by some 1516 learners in Grades 8 to 12.
(8)
The third applicant is Tandanie Lydia Msipopetu, a parent of two
learners at the Lutande Primary School in Thohoyandou, Ms Msipopetu's
children are aged 12 and 18 and are in Grades 3 and 6 respectively.
She brings this application in her capacity as a parent of
learners
who have not been provided with text books for the 2012 academic
year.
(9)
No serious challenge to the standing of the 1st applicant has been
launched. I am satisfied if regard be had to Section 38 of
the
Constitution that it acts in these proceedings, both in its own
interest, as well as in the public interests as contemplated
in
Section 38.
The
2nd and 3rd applicants have a direct a material interest in the
relief sought, as educators and as parents respectfully. See
generally in this regard a Rail Commuter Action Group and others vs
Transnet Limited, trading as Metro Rail and Others, 2005 (2)
SA page
359 (CC), where the Constitutional Court took a position that
suggested that one should be generous with regard to the
issue of
standing in Constitutional matters.
(10)
The 1st Respondent is the Minister of Basic Education and the 2
Respondent is the member of the Executive Council of the Limpopo
Department of Education.
(11)
It appears that on 5 December 2011, the Limpopo Department of
Education, together with a number of other Provincial Departments
in
Limpopo was placed under administration in terms of Section 100,
(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Department of Education accordingly,
assumed full responsibility for the obligations of the Limpopo
Education Department in order to ensure that the minimum standards
for the Department's obligations are met.
Section
100(1)(b) provides in part as follows: "When a Province does not
or cannot fulfil an executive obligation in terms
of the Constitution
or legislation, the National Executive may intervene by taking any
appropriate steps to ensure fulfilment of
that obligation including
maintaining essential national standards or meeting established
minimum standards for the rendering of
a service."
(12)
The relief sought in these proceedings by the applicant is as
follows:
12.1
Firstly it seeks an order declaring that the matter is urgent and
should be dealt with as such in terms of the Provisions of
Rule 6
12(a). It also seeks an order declaring that the failure by the
Department of Education in Limpopo and the Department of
Basic
Education, to provide text books to schools in Limpopo, is a
violation of the right to basic education, equality, dignity
and the
South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996
and Section 195 of the
Constitution.
12.2
It seeks further relief in directing the Limpopo Department of
Education or alternatively the Department of Education to provide
text books for Grades R, 1, 2, 3 and 10 on an urgent basis by no
later than the 31st May 2012 to the Dijannane Tumi Secondary School,
Lutande Primary School and all other schools in Limpopo which have
not yet received their text books.
12.3
It also seeks relief in the form of a directive that the Limpopo
Department of Education, alternatively the National Department
of
Education, develop what is termed a 'catch-up plan' for at least the
effected Grade 10 learners in Limpopo, and to lodge such
a plan with
the Court.
(13)
The respondents oppose the application both in respect of urgency as
well as in respect of the merits. I will deal briefly
with the
background and facts at the heart of this dispute.
(14)
The schools in Limpopo that are the subject of this application and
that may be affected by any relief that may be granted,
rely on the
1st and 2nd respondents for the procurement and delivery of text
books. They complete requisition forms for the text
books they
require which are then submitted to the offices of the 2nd respondent
for processing. The 2nd applicant completed and
submitted the
necessary requisition forms during or about 17 November 2011 to the
offices of the Limpopo Department of Education.
(15)
During or about 11 January 2012 the City Press, a National Newspaper
with wide circulation, published an article with regard
to the
concerns that text books in Limpopo had not yet been delivered to
schools one week before they were due to open. The article
quotes a
Departmental spokesperson as saying the DBE expected a "minimum
of disruption", in supplying text books relevant
to the
Department's implementation of its curriculum and assessment policy
statements known also as CAPS, and appeared to have
identified the
problem as 'cashflow'.
(16)
The Mail and Guardian on 20 January 2012 published an article
articulating similar concerns with regard to the delivery of
text
books to Limpopo schools. On 2 February 2012, and prompted by the
media reports referred to above, staff of the 1st applicant
visited
several schools in Limpopo and in particular in the Mopani district
and were advised at each school visited, that text
books were not
delivered.
(17)
A follow-up visit on 16 and 17 February 2012 met with the same
response, namely, no text books had been delivered. On 28 February
2012, the 1st applicant despatched a letter to the Department of
Basic Education regarding its concerns about the failure of the
delivery of text books and requesting information regarding the
expected time frame for the delivery of text books.
In
response to this letter a meeting was convened between staff of the
1st applicant and Dr Karodia the head of the Limpopo Education
Intervention team. The meeting dealt with, amongst other things,
delivery of text books and the 1st applicant was advised, that
because of problems with what was described as 'an unscrupulous
tender award' there would be some delays inthe delivery of text
books
but that delivery would be affected by the latest, the middle of
April 2012.
(18)
By the middle of April 2012, it is common cause that text books had
still not been delivered, which resulted in further correspondence
between the 1st applicant and Dr Karodia and on 2 May 2012, the
latter advised as follows:
"The
supply of text books will now take place through the months of May
and definitely be completed by 15 June 2012".
This
was unacceptable to the applicants who launched these proceedings on
4 May 2012.
(19)
The stance of the applicants can be summarized as follows:
19.1
That the nature of the relief it seeks and the steps taken by it
since the early part of the year when it became aware of the
text
book problem, and the continued failure to delivery text books,
renders the matter urgent and that it has made out a proper
case for
urgency.
19.2
That the respondent has a Constitutional obligation to fulfil the
right to basic education which duty, includes amongst other
things,
the provision of text books and that the failure by the respondents
to provide text books to schools in Limpopo at the
commencement of
the school year or within a reasonable period thereafter, constitutes
a violation of the right to basic education,
equality and dignity,
the Schools Act and Section 195 of the Constitution.
19.3
It accordingly in addition to seeking a declarator seeks relief both
in respect of an Order to compel the respondents to effect
delivery
of the text books in question as well as an Order that will in the
applicant's view ensure that the prejudice suffered
by the learners
on account of the failure to deliver text books by the respondents,
is ameliorated by a catch-up plan, at least
in respect of Grade 10
learners in Limpopo
(20)
The issues for determination are accordingly, firstly, that of
urgency. Given the centrality of education in the Constitutional
framework that I have described, the fact that schools in Limpopo do
not have text books as they approach the halfway mark of the
academic
year, in my view renders the matter urgent. A week or even a day is
material under these circumstances. The nature of
the relief they
seek renders the matter sufficiently urgent.
In
addition the applicants, once they became aware of the problem acted
reasonably in engaging the respondents and accepted earlier
undertakings, which were not made good. In my view there was no undue
delay on their part and I am satisfied that the matter is
urgent for
the purposes of Rule 6 (12).
(21)
The second issue is whether the failure by the respondents to provide
text books to schools in Limpopo, constituted a violation
of the
right to basic education, equality and dignity and the
South African
Schools Act and
Section 195 of the Constitution. The right to basic
education enshrined in Section 29 (1)(a) is distinguishable from
other social
and economic rights. In this regard the Constitutional
Court in The Governing Body of the Juma Masjid Primary School &
another
vs Essay N.O. 2011 (8) BCLR page 761, (CC) at paragraph 37
held as follows:
"It
is important for the purpose of this judgment to understand the
nature of the right to basic education under Section 29
(1)(a).
Unlike some of the other socio-gravic rights, this right is
immediately realisable. There is no internal limitation requiring
that the right be progressively realised within available resources
subject to reasonable legislative measures. The right to basic
education in Section 29 (1)(a), may be limited only in terms of the
law of general application which is reasonable and justifiable
in an
open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and
freedom. This right Is therefore distinct from the right
to further
education provided for in Section 29 (1)(b). The State is in terms of
that right obliged through reasonable measures
to make further
education progressively available and accessible. Accordingly the
obligation exists for the immediate realisation
of the right on the
part of the respondents." See also in this regard an article by
Mandla Seloane entitled "The right
to Education". Lessons
from Grootboom, in Law, Democracy and Development (2003) at page 200,
who contends that the State in
this regard must ensure that the
components of a basic education are met.
(22)
In the context of this application one of those components is the
provision of text books and while it may be said that no
consensus
exists broadly in the South African context, on the content of the
right to basic education, even though there have been
compelling
arguments that it must and should, in order to be meaningful, include
such issues as infrastructure, learner transport,
security at
schools, nutrition and such related matters. However, for the
purposes of this application it is not necessary to determine
those
broader issues, or indeed to express the view on that matter, except
to say that the arguments that the right must be broad
and
encompassing, appear to be compelling.
(23)
What is relevant, however, in the context of the right, is the narrow
question in this application whether the provisions of
text books is
a component of the right to basic education? The answer to this
question, in my view, can be found quite easily in
the policy
statements of the State in respect of text books and their
relationship to giving effect to the right to basic education.
23.1
In his State of Nation Address, delivered on the 10
th
February 2011, President Zuma said the following:
"The
Administration must ensure that every child has a text book on time."
23.2
The Department of Education in Limpopo in its Annual Performance Plan
for the year 2011 to 2012 articulates as one of its goals
the
following:
"To
ensure that every learner has access to a minimum set of text books
and work books required according to National Policy,"
The
corresponding indicator in respect of this goal is described as
follows:
"The
percentage of learners having access to the required text books and
work books for the entire school year".
The
Department in this regard sets the target at 100%. 23.3 Finally the
curriculum strategy to improve education in Limpopo, issued
by the
Limpopo Department of Education, dated March 2011, makes the
following observations: -
"
The availability and retention of learning support materials is a
vital ingredient in the delivery of quality learning and
teaching.
When resources such as learner and teacher support materials are
insufficient, teachers experience great difficulty in
planning and
conducting lessons, even where there were enough of other resources.
If one takes seriously the observation that in
developing countries,
the availability of text books is associated with student performance
and pass rates than lack of learning
materials in school, clearly
points to our learners not performing well in their learning."
Clearly the above provides correctly
in my view the unambiguous
stance by Government that text books are an essential and vital
component in delivering quality learning
and teaching.
(24)
The stance of Mr Mavuso who deposed to an affidavit on behalf of the
respondent, in these proceedings, that, "with heavy
reliance on
work books in 2012, curriculum for Grade R through to 9, text books
has become simply complimentary to the teaching
process," is
hardly consistent with the policy goals and indicators to which
reference has already been made, and the attempt
by the deponent to
relegate the importance of text books to be complimentary, is hardly
sustainable and is contradicted by the
respondent's own ambiguous and
unconditional assertions in this regard.
(25)
Accordingly I conclude on this aspect that the provision of learner
support material in the form of text books, as may be prescribed
is
an essential component of the right to basic education and its
provision is inextricably linked to the fulfilment of the right.
In
fact, it is difficult to conceive, even with the best of intentions,
how the right to basic education can be given effect to
in the
absence of text books.
On
that basis, it must accordingly follow, given the respondents' own
goals and indicators in its annual performance plan and its
target
setting of 100% in respect of work books and text books for the
entire school year, that the failure to provide text books,
somewhat
midway through the academic year would prima facie constitute a
violation of the right to basic education.
(26)
In this regard, however, the Court was urged to consider the measures
taken by the respondents and the special challenges it
faced, and it
was argued firstly, that the respondent acted bona fide at all times
and secondly that the respondent under the circumstances
it faced,
took reasonable measures to effect delivery, and its failure to do so
timeously was as a result of circumstances beyond
it's control.
(27)
I deal firstly with the question of bona fides. In my view that is
hardly decisive of the issue. Conduct that would constitute
a
violation of a right does not have to be mala fide and equally the
existence of bona fides cannot have the effect of rendering
conduct
which would ordinarily constitute the violation of a right, somehow
immune from attack, simply because it was accompanied
by bona fides.
In my view the issue of bona fides is not a relevant consideration in
this application.
(28)
I proceed to deal with the second issue and that is an assessment
whether the measures taken by the respondent were reasonable
in these
circumstances? The Section 101(1)(b), the decision referred to above
was taken on 5 December 2011. The respondent has
attached a timeline
to its affidavit in terms of which it seeks to explain the sequence
of events that led to the delay. It indicates
that in January 2012,
issues of fraud and corruption were uncovered and were investigated.
There was an audit of the actual number
of text books required, and
this was completed in April 2012, and that the procurement process in
respect of text books began on
26 April 2012.
(29)
While one is not unsympathetic to the position of the respondents, at
the same time, I am not convinced that it required all
of five months
to effect an audit of actual needs. I may pause to mention that in
the course of hearing of this application, the
respondent made
available a directive that was issued on 14 May 2012 to all schools
in Limpopo, asking them to deal with gaps in
the curriculum. Those
schools were given until 31 May 2012 to respond. So in respect of a
substantial issue such as this, the respondent
was able to set a time
table of 2 weeks which must point in the direction that an audit in
respect of books required, could have
certainly been completed within
a period of two weeks.
(30)
In my view, the situation with regard to text books, warranted an
intervention characterised by urgency and a recognition of
both the
need to provide text books without delay and an appreciation of the
adverse consequences that would follow for learners,
if this was not
done. It appears that was lacking.
(31)
I may pause to add that the issue of text books was brought to the
Department's attention as early as December 2011 when the
Publishers
Association of South Africa forwarded no less than three
communications to the Department, alerting them both to the
need to
place orders timeously and alerting them to the fact that orders in
respect of the Limpopo schools had not been placed.
There was no
response to these communications. I am not satisfied that the
necessary urgency accompanied the efforts of the respondents
in this
regard. In passing, and if one has regard to the time lines, it is
difficult to understand how the respondents made an
earlier
commitment for delivery by mid-April. One can only assume that such a
commitment, which is not disputed, would only have
been made if it
was practicality possible, suggesting in my view that an earlier
resolution with regard to the text books issue
was not only
necessary, but was also possible.
(32)
Accordingly, ! conclude the failure by the respondents to provide
text books, constitutes a violation of right to basic education.
In
this regard I wish to point out that I do not characterise the
respondents' conduct as being mala fide. On the contrary they
may
have acted in good faith, but that is hardly decisive for the reasons
I have already given. The fact of the matter is that
the measures
they took were not reasonable, having regard to the urgency of the
situation and having regard to their own targets
and indicators they
had set in respect of the delivery of text books. The applicants in
my view, would be accordingly entitled
to the relief they seek in
respect of this prayer.
(33)
With regard to prayer 3 which is an order in respect of delivery,
there appears to be little dispute. The applicant sought
in order
that delivery be effected by 31 May 2012. However, during argument,
Counsel for the applicants took the stance, which
was reasonable in
my view, that all things being equal, delivery will only start on 31
May 2012 and be completed by 15 June 2012.
There appears to be no
problem then in issuing an order along those lines.
(34)
I now proceed to deal with prayer 4 which is the prayer dealing with
what has become known as the 'catch-up plan' or a remedial
plan.
The
applicant's stance in this regard is that while the delivery of text
books, during the period 31 May 2012 to 15 June 2012 will
contribute
significantly to creating an environment where proper learning and
teaching can take place, there is little doubt that
the absence of
text books for the better part of the first half of the academic year
has had an adverse effect on learner's rights
which must be remedied.
They contend that the respondents have an obligation to ensure that
the consequences of the delay in the
delivery of text books, caused
by the respondents need to be addressed, adequately and
appropriately. To this end they contend
that the Court, if it
concludes that there was a violation of fundamental rights on the
part of the respondents, must in terms
of its powers, granted to it
in terms of Section 172(1 )(b) of the Constitution, make an order
that is just and equitable to remedy
the rights violation, and in
this regard to fashion new remedies where existing traditional
remedies do not provide sufficient
redress. They rely on the dicta in
FOSE v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA (786) (CC).
(35)
In this regard it must be abundantly clear that where a violation of
rights has taken place, the remedy that is offered must
be effective
and meaningful. If not, it renders the vindication of rights rather
hollow and a court in this regard must act in
both the spirit of the
Constitution as well as ensuring that when rights are vindicated,
remedies are appropriate to meet the mischief
which is being sought
to be dealt with.
(36)
There is no doubt that an order only for delivery of text books will
not address the consequences and effects of the failure
of delivery
for the first half the year. The circumstances of the matter require
an Intervention to address both the gaps in learning
as well as the
quality in learning and teaching, in particular for Grade 10
learners. This is to ensure that the prejudice they
invariably would
have experienced on account of not having text books, is ameliorated.
(37)
The respondents did not appear to have any principled objection for
the need of such an intervention, and have in this regard,
on 14 May
2012, (a day before the hearing of this application) addressed a
communication to all district managers, all circuit
managers and all
principals of public schools in the following terms.
They
request by 31 May 2012 from all the recipients of these letters an
indication to the extent of the curriculum that has been
covered for
Grade 10 learners and an indication of the parts of the curriculum
which should have been covered by now and remains
uncovered, an
indication of the areas of gaps that exist and if there are no gaps,
an indication of that as well, and an indication
of the measures that
the schools would effect to ensure that the identified gaps will be
covered within the 2012 school year.
(38)
While this is an important and encouraging step, an effective
'catch-up plan' cannot be the sole responsibility of the schools
in
question and nor can it be formulated on the basis of only the
school's assessment of gaps and issued around quality. The role
of
the respondents in being proactive in the identification of gaps and
quality in teaching and in providing the support and creating
the
framework and environment for those gaps to be addressed, is equally
important.
(39)
That being the case and having regard to the stance of the
respondents in taking the first steps in the development of such
a
plan, there appears no obstacle to the grant of the relief sought.
While the plan must ultimately be the making of the respondents,
in
consultation with the schools and be a collaborative effort of the
respondents, schools, educators, parents and learners at
the very
least it should constitute a serious and practical plan to address
the gaps in teaching and the compromise in quality
that would
invariably have occurred in the teaching that took place.
Given
that schools have until 31 May 2012 to respond to the respondents
request for data, and measures taken, a suitable timeframe
for the
submission of such a plan to this Court would be 8 June 2012, with
the additional requirement that monthly reports on the
implementation
of the 'catch-up-plan' be submitted to the Court and to the
applicants on a monthly basis.
(40)
In my view this would not be unduly onerous. The respondents agree
that there is a need for such a plan. The reports would
entail
approximately 5 to 6 months of submissions, which i imagine in any
event would have been prepared by the respondents, given
their own
intimation that they wished to address the gaps in the teaching of
the curriculum. In my view the plan, while i do not
wish to be
prescriptive in this regard, should contain features both in respect
of gaps in the curriculum, gaps in quality, the
nature of the
remedial measures, the timeframes, the role of the various role
players, ensure that it is comprehensive, deal with
the provision of
extra classes and provide an indication when it will happen as also
to indicate a focal point within the respondents'
structure, who will
take responsibility for the plan. I will deal with details of this
plan, later in this judgment.
(41)
I deal finally with the question of costs. There is no reason why the
ordinary rule that the costs should follow the results,
should not
apply in this case. Ms Granova appearing for the respondents,
referred me to the judgment in the matter of A-party and
others v The
Minister of Home Affairs 2009, (6) BCLR page 611 (CC) and urged me
not to order attorney costs on the basis that the
first applicant was
acting on a pro bono basis. I have had sight of the judgment in
question and the relevant paragraph is to be
found at page 633,
paragraph 85, where the Court says as follows:
"In
the circumstances it is fair towards the Monocian AP party
applicants, half of the costs incurred in the proceedings in
this
court, such costs include the costs of two counsel. It appears from
the founding affidavit in the Monocian matter that the
attorneys
represent the applicants on a pro bono basis. Accordingly during
argument, counsel for the Monocian applicants asked
that costs be
limited to disbursements only, including the fees of counsel, it will
be so ordered."
(42)
I do not see this judgment as providing an insurmountable obstacle to
the grant of costs in respect of attorney's fees. In
this regard the
relationship between the attorney and client with regard to the issue
of pro bono costs, is not an issue that involves
the respondents, and
I cannot imagine that the respondents can seek to obtain benefit from
that. In any event in this regard, one
must take cognisance of the
fact that the role of civil society organisations in this regard, is
important in facilitating access
to courts in order to vindicate
Constitutional rights, and to the extent that they are successful,
there is no reason why they
should not be entitled to costs, even if
they act on a pro bono basis having regard to the issues of
sustainability and financial
integrity that such organisations face
on a continued basis.
(43)
In all the circumstances and for the reasons given, I make the
following order:
ORDER
1.
It Is declared the matter is urgent and could be considered as urgent
in terms of Rule 6.12(b).
2.
It is declared the failure by the Limpopo Department of Education and
the Department of Basic Education to provide text books
to schools in
Limpopo is a violation of a right to basic education.
3.
The Limpopo Department of Education, alternatively the Department of
Basic Education is directed to provide text books for Grades
R, 1, 2,
3 and 10 on an urgent basis, commencing on 31 May 201.2 and
concluding by no later than 15 June 2012 to the Dijannane
Tumi
Secondary School, Lutande Primary School and all other schools in
Limpopo which have not yet received their text books.
4.
The Limpopo Department of Education, alternatively the Department of
Basic Education is directed to immediately develop a 'catch-up
/
remedial' plan for affected Grade 10 learners in Limpopo. Such a plan
should contain at the very least, the following.
(a)
Identify the gaps in the curriculum for Grade 10 learners in terms of
what should have been covered as opposed to what has been
covered.
(b)
Identify the extent to which the quality of teaching in the areas
where it occurred was prejudiced or compromised as a result
of the
non-availability of text books.
(c)
Identify remedial' measures that are contemplated in addressing both
the matters identified in a and b above, the role of the
various role
players in this regard, including the respondents, schools,
educators, learners and parents and any other party.
(d)
Provide a timeframe in respect of which the plan is to be implemented
as well as the monitoring mechanisms which will be put
in place to
monitor the implementation of the plan.
(e)
Ensure that the plan is comprehensive to the extent that it covers
all affected Grade 10 learners, recognising of course, that
the
nature of the interventions may differ from school to school.
(f)
To the extent that the plan will invariably involve extra classes and
lessons, indicate when these will happen.
(g)
Indicate a focal point for responsibility for the plan at both
National and Provincial Departments of Education.
(h)
Prepare and submit monthly reports on the implementation of the plan
indicating both achievements and setbacks and where setbacks
are
identified, how it is proposed they be dealt with.
(i)
The monthly reports referred to should be submitted by no later than
the 30th of each month, commencing on 30 July 2012 and
thereafter on
or before the 30th day of
each month until 30 November 2012.
(j)
The proposed time frame for the implementation should be between 15
June 2012 to 30 December 2012.
(k)
It is directed that the respondents lodge with this court and the
applicants the 'catch-up / remedial' plan referred to above
by no
later than 8 June 2012. For the sake of completeness and even though
it is covered in the plan, the respondents are directed
to submit
monthly reports to both the court and the applicants, to the farter's
attorneys, the first such report by 30 July 2012
and thereafter, on
or before the 30th day of each month until 30 November 2012.
(5)
Leave is granted to the applicants to approach the above court on the
same papers, supplemented as the circumstances may require,
for
further relief.
(6)
The respondents are ordered pay the costs of this application jointly
and severely, the one paying the other to be absolved.
COUNSEL
FOR APPLICANTS: ADV M. SIKHAKHANE S.C
ATTORNEYS
FOR APPLICANTS: CENTRE FOR APPLIED LEGEL STUDIES
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENTS: ADV GRANOVA
ATTORNEYS
FOR RESPONDENTS: STATE ATTORNEYS