Top Menu

Basic Education Litigation

Read the founding papers in the court case in which the government is sued by Jean Pease and the Progressive Principals Association to secure delivery of the right to basic education. The case focuses on the promotion of early childhood development, the professionalization of teachers, securing delivery of textbooks and other learning materials on time, in classrooms, in the right quantities and languages; the need for mother tongue education in the foundational phase is also tackled.

Report to Stakeholders on the progress of the Basic Education Case

Index

Notice of Motion

Accompanying Documents:

Notice of Intention to amend Applicants’ Notice of Motion

Replacement paragraph 4 on pg 4 of the Notice of Motion

Applicants’ Founding Affidavit

Annexures

EP 1
EP 2
EP 3a
EP 3b
EP 4
EP 5
EP 6
EP 7
EP 8
EP 9
EP 10
EP 11
EP 12
EP 13
EP 14
EP 15
EP 16
EP 17
EP 18
EP 19
EP 20
EP 21
EP 22
EP 23
EP 24
EP 25
EP 26
EP 27
EP 28
EP 29
EP 30
EP 31
EP 32
Applicants’ Supplementary Affidavit
Respondents’ Answering Affidavits

Annexures

DBE 1
DBE 2
DBE 3
DBE 4
DBE 5
DBE 6
DBE 7
DBE 8
DBE 9
DBE 10
DBE 11
DBE 12
DBE 13
DBE 14 p1960 – 2134
DBE 14 p2135 – 2300
DBE 14 p2301 – 2460
DBE 15
DBE 16
DBE 17
DBE 18
DBE 19
DBE 20
Respondents’ Confirmatory Affidavits
Respondents’ Notice to Strike Out
Respondents’ Condonation Application


The Applicants’ Replying Affidavits

Replying affidavits
Annexures to replying affidavits

Annexures

EWP 1
EWP 2
EWP 3
EWP 4
EWP 5
EWP 6
EWP 7
EWP 8
EWP 9
EWP 10
EWP 11
EWP 12
EWP 13
EWP 14
EWP 15

The Applicants’ Heads of Argument

Applicants’ Heads of Argument

    – 23rd April 2014

Accompanying Documents:

Report on the Public Hearing on the Right to Basic EducationReferences to SACMEQ, TIMSS & PIRLSList of record references where Respondents refer to SACMEQAmended – Interpreting the graph on p 636 of the recordApplicants’ Case on the Respondents’ Version
Applicants’ Heads of Argument in Reply

 

Applicants’ Guide to Reading the Record

Applicants Guide to Reading the Record

    – 23rd April 2014

Accompanying Documents:

Concretising the Right to Basic Education

Mandatory Relief & Supervisory Jurisdiction

Applicants Bundle of Authorities

Articles:

McConnachie – Concretising the Right to Basic Education

K Roach & G Budlender – Mandatory Relief & Supervisory Jurisdiction

Couzens M. The Con Court consolidates its child – focussed jurisprudence
– the case of C v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng


Case Law:

BIOWATCH TRUST V REGISTRAR GENETICS RESOURCES 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC)

AllPay Consolidated Investment & Others v CEO of the SA Social Security Agency & Others (No 2) [2014] ZACC 12 (17 April 2014)

FOSE v MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC)

C and OTHERS v DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT GAUTENG & OTHERS 2012 (2) SA 208 (CC)

GLENISTER II v THE PRESIDENT OF THE RSA AND OTHERS 2011 (3) SA 347 (CC)

GOVERNING BODY OF THE JUMA MUSJID PRIMARY & OTHERS v ESSAY NO AND OTEHRS 2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC)

HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION v PRESIDENT OF RSA & OTHERS; IN RE – GLENISTER v PRESIDENT OF RSA AND OTHERS [2014] 1 All SA 671 (WCC)

Madzodzo & Others v Minister of Basic Education & Others

MINISTER OF HEALTH v TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN (NO 2) 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC)

NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v ZUMA 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA)

PERMANENT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT v NGXUZA 2001 (4) SA 1184 (SCA)

RAIL COMMUTERS ACTION GROUP & OTHERS v TRANSNET LTD 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC)

MATATIELE MUNICIPALITY v PRESIDENT OF RSA 2006 (5) SA 47 (CC)

SECTION 27 AND OTHERS v MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHERS

RAIL COMMUTER ACTION GROUP AND OTHERS v TRANSNET LTD _NO

SWISSBOROUGH DIAMOND MINES _PTY_ LTD AND OTHERS v GOVERNMENT

IL & B MARCOW CATERERS _PTY_ LTD v GREATERMANS SA LTD


Respondents’ Heads of Argument

Respondents’ Heads of ArgumentList of Authorities – VOL1 Pease & Another vs Government of RSA & OthersList of Authorities – VOL2 Pease & Another vs Government of RSA & Others

 

Court’s invitation to submit further developments

Applicants first letter and annexures to the court (6 June 2014):

Applicants first letter

Annexures:

NCL1 – F VERIAVA
NCL2 – C MARUMOAGAE
NCL3 – V MAPHAI
NCL4 – SAHRC STATEMENT
NCL5 – SAHRC REPORT
NCL6 – DBE STATEMENT
NCL7 – A BERNSTEIN
NCL8 – S BADAT & Y SAYED

Applicants second letter and annexure to the court (23 June 2014):

Applicants second letter and annexure “V1”

Respondents letter and annexures to the court (30 June 2014):

Respondents letter

Annexures:

A – Gustafsson analysisB – Unesco report

Applicants third letter and annexure (4 July 2014):

Applicants third letter

Annexure:

Annexure “P1”

Applicants fourth letter and annexure (1 August 2014):

Applicants fourth letter “Rio Grande” judgement

Annexure:

“G1” Rio Grande judgement

Applicants fifth letter and annexure (4 August 2014):

Applicants fifth letter

Annexure:

“H1” Sunday Times article

Applicants sixth letter (5 August 2014):

Applicants sixth letter

Auditor-General’s letter (5 August 2014):

Auditor-General’s letter

Respondents second letter (5 August 2014):

Respondents second letter

Applicants seventh letter and annexure (26 August 2014):

Applicants seventh letter

Annexure:

“Z1” Ministerial Task Team report

 

One Response to Basic Education Litigation

  1. Caroline Long 25 March 2017 at 5:04 pm #

    Please can you take up another issue. The students at UJ and other campuses have not been given their NSFAS and Funza bursary money and now it is end March. And first year teachers have not been paid. What is the DBE doing!

Leave a Reply