THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No: 20793/2014

In the matter between:
MINISTER OF BASIC EDUCATION

FIRST APPELLANT
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF BASIC EDUCATION

SECOND APPELLANT
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, LIMPOPO
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THIRD APPELLANT
ACTING HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, LIMPOPO DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION

FOURTH APPELLANT
HEAD OF THE INTERVENTION TEAM, LIMPOPO
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FIFTH APPELLANT

and

BASIC EDUCATION FOR ALL

FIRST RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TLAME PRIMARY
SCHOOL

SECOND RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, MARESELENG
SECONDARY SCHOOL

THIRD RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, ARETHABENG
PRIMARY SCHOOL

FOURTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, GADABI PRIMARY SCHOOL
FIFTH RESPONDENT

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, MANKOPODI PRIMARY
SCHOOL

SIXTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, SHAKOLENG
SECONDARY SCHOOL

SEVENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TSWETLANE PRIMARY

SCHOOL

EIGHTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, DAVHANA
SECONDARY SCHOOL

NINTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TSOGANG PRIMARY SCHOOL          TENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, SCHOONGEZICHT
SECONDARY SCHOOL

ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, SEJADIPUDI
PRIMARY SCHOOL

TWELFTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, VHULAUDZI
SECONDARY SCHOOL

THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TSHINAVHE

SECONDARY SCHOOL

FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, MOKOBOLA
PRIMARY SCHOOL

FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, MASHILOMPANE
PRIMARY SCHOOL

SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, KHUDUGANE
SECONDARY SCHOOL

SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TSHEHLWANENG
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, TSHABADIETLA
SECONDARY SCHOOL

NINETEENTH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, MAKALA
SECONDARY SCHOOL

TWENTIETH RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, REBONE
SECONDARYSCHOOL

TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY,
THOROMETSANE PRIMARY SCHOOL

TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, SEKABA

SECONDARY SCHOOL

TWENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
TWENTY FOURTH RESPONDENT

Neutral Citation:
Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014)
[2015] ZASCA 198 (2 December 2015).
Coram:
Navsa, Lewis, Cachalia, Petse and Dambuza JJA
Heard:

24 November 2015
Delivered:

2 December 2015
Summary:

Constitutional law – right to education in terms of s 29(1)(a) of the
Constitution – content of right discussed – Department of Basic Education adopting
clear national policy that each learner must be provided with a textbook for each subject
before commencement of the academic year – Department failing to do so in respect of
some learners in Limpopo – held that the Department had given content to s 29(1)(a) –
right immediately realisable – held accordingly that the Department‟s failure to provide
textbooks to each learner infringes their right to basic education – held further that
failure to provide textbooks to a small number of students in Limpopo amounted to
unfair discrimination against them – order of court a quo requiring Department to deliver
textbooks and report to respondents accordingly confirmed and appeal dismissed – in
addition, cross-appeal upheld and declaration made that Department in breach of
previous court orders concerning delivery of textbooks.

______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Tuchten J sitting as
court of first instance).
The following order is made:
1. The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.
2. The cross-appeal in relation to the failure by the court below to declare that there had
been non-compliance by the Department of Basic Education with the court order
granted by Kollapen J is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel.
3.
The following orders are substituted for the orders of the Gauteng Division of the
High Court:
„1.
It is declared that s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution entitles every learner at public
schools in Limpopo to be provided with every textbook prescribed for his or her
grade before commencement of the teaching of the course for which the textbook
is prescribed.
It is declared that it is the duty of the State, in terms of s 7(2) of the Constitution,
to fulfil the s 29(1)(a) right of every learner by providing him or her with every
textbook prescribed for his or her grade before commencement of the teaching of
the course for which the textbook is prescribed.
It is declared that the National Department of Basic Education and the Limpopo
Department of Education violated the s 29(1)(a), s 9 (equality) and s 10 (dignity)
right of learners in Limpopo in 2014 by failing to provide all of them with every
prescribed textbook before commencement of the teaching of the courses for
which they were prescribed.
It is declared that the National Department of Basic Education and the Limpopo
Department of Education failed to comply with paragraph 6 of the order made by

Kollapen J on 4 October 2012 that they “deliver all textbooks to schools for
grades 4, 5, 6 and 11 for the 2013 year by 15 December 2012”.
The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants‟ costs including the costs of
two counsel.‟

_____________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
Navsa JA (Lewis, Cachalia, Petse and Dambuza JJA concurring):

[1] Frederick Douglass, a former slave and eminent America human rights leader in
the abolitionist movement understood the liberating power of books and their connection
to education and the fulfilment of human potential. He said:
„Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.‟1
More recently Kofi Annan, the former United Nations Secretary General, said:
„Literacy is a bridge from misery to hope. It is a tool for daily life in modern society. It is a
bulwark against poverty and a building block of development, an essential complement to
investments in roads, dams, clinics and factories. Literacy is a platform for democratization, and
a vehicle for the promotion of cultural and national identity. Especially for girls and women, it is
an agent of family health and nutrition. For everyone, everywhere, literacy is, along with
education in general, a basic human right.‟2
The world has progressed from being limited to printed works and has moved to the
technological wonders of electronic media. The advent of electronic reading materials
has not lessened the impact of the expressions cited above. If anything, there has been
an explosion of information which has rendered reading in the modern world all the

1 Quoted in Dr Purushothaman Words of Wisdom: 1001 Quotes & Quotations (Volume 64), at 146.
2 This is contained in a press release from the United Nations entitled „Secretary-General stresses need
for political will and resources to meet challenge of fight against illiteracy„, commemorating the celebration
of
International
Literacy
Day
on
September
1997.
Available
at
http://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19970904.SGSM6316.html, accessed 25 November 2015.

more important. This case is about the importance of textbooks in schools and it
explores the role that they play in a child and adult‟s right to a basic education.

[2] The following extended definition of the term „textbook‟ was supplied by the
appellants in affidavits filed on their behalf in the court below:
„[A] publication of systematically organised activities and background and information on the
content to be taught, comprehensive enough to cover the primary objectives outlined in the
curriculum of a particular subject for the entire grade. A textbook contains exercises, problems,
and practice material to clarify and reinforce the lessons presented by the teacher. Learners can
use it to practise what they are learning in class. It contains learner activities that are graded,
scaffolded and are based on the curriculum of the subject/grade. It also provides resource
information and background reading on the subject, and, in the case of languages, it may
provide texts for the different genre. Lastly, a textbook has assessment activities and rubrics.‟
Textbooks in the South African context assume a special significance due to the fact
that in prescribing textbooks the DBE laudably ensures, not only that cognitive
development is taken into account, but also that Constitutional values are instilled.

[3] The recent countrywide protests by students enrolled at tertiary educational
institutions, demanding further education free of charge, captured the nation‟s attention
and has brought into focus the plight of those without the means to realise their full
potential through further education. The present case however, addresses a more
foundational issue. It concerns the rights of learners at public schools and the question
that requires to be addressed is whether the right to a basic education, guaranteed by
the Constitution, includes the right of learners at public schools to be provided with a
textbook for each subject in time for the commencement of the teaching of the
curriculum at the beginning of the school academic year. The appellants‟ assertion that
the guarantee of the right to a basic education set out in s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is
not one cast in absolute terms and its justification for not providing a textbook to each
learner in the geographical area in question will be considered. It must be said, at the
outset, that it is common cause that the affected learners are from poor communities
and are mostly, if not exclusively, located in rural areas. They are also overwhelmingly,
if not exclusively, black learners. The schools in question are „no fee‟ schools and were

not granted permission in terms of s 21(c) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996
(SASA) to purchase textbooks, educational materials or equipment for the school on
their own. They are restricted to performing their functions in terms of s 20 of SASA.

[4] The answer to the question posed in this appeal can only follow upon a full
interrogation of the obligations of the appellants in terms of s 29(1)(a) of the
Constitution. Before embarking on that exercise, alongside a consideration of the
genesis and background to the litigation, it is necessary at the outset to identify the
litigating parties.

[5] The first appellant is the Minister of Basic Education (the Minister), cited in her
capacity as the head of the Department of Basic Education (the DBE). She bears the
responsibility for determining school education policies and for administering a budget
sanctioned by Parliament. She also holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring
Constitutional and statutory compliance. The second appellant is the Director-General
of Basic Education who is responsible for the implementation of measures to that end.
The third appellant is the Member of the Executive Council in the Limpopo Department
of Education (the MEC), who would, in the ordinary course, have been responsible for
the delivery of textbooks in the Province. It is common cause that at material times the
Limpopo Provincial Administration was dysfunctional and the National Executive
intervened in the Provincial administration in terms of s 100 of the Constitution3 and

3 Section 100 of the Constitution reads:
(1)
When a province cannot or does not 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 -
(a)
issuing a directive to the provincial executive, describing the extent of the failure to fulfil
its obligations and stating any steps required to meet its obligations; and
(b)
assuming responsibility for the relevant obligation in that province to the extent necessary
to –
(i)
maintain essential national standards or meet established minimum standards for
the rendering of a service;

(ii)
maintain economic unity;

(iii)
maintain national security; or
(iv)
prevent that province from taking unreasonable action that is prejudicial to the
interest of another province or to the country as a whole.
(2)
If the national executive intervenes in a province in terms of subsection (1)(b) –
(a)
it must submit a written notice of the intervention to the National Council of Provinces
within 14 days after the intervention began;

consequently the Minister assumed responsibility for the Limpopo Department of
Education (the LDOE).4 The fourth appellant is the Acting Head of the Limpopo
Department of Education who, in the ordinary course, would have been tasked with the
implementation of measures for the realisation of the right to basic education in the
Province, which would include seeing to the procurement and delivery of textbooks. The
fifth appellant is the head of the intervention team in the LDOE. For purposes envisaged
in s 100 of the Constitution, the head of the intervention team acts on behalf of the
Minister during the intervention period.

[6] The first respondent is Basic Education For All (BEFA), a voluntary association
based in Limpopo. BEFA was inaugurated on 6 October 2012, in response to the
education crisis in Limpopo. Its members include school principals, teachers, parents,
members of school governing bodies (SGBs), learners and concerned community
members. According to BEFA it seeks to promote and protect the right to basic
education for learners in Limpopo. BEFA litigated not only in its own interest, but also in
the interests of all public schools in Limpopo that were affected by the non-delivery of
textbooks. The second to twenty third respondents are SGBs of 22 schools. The 22
schools are a mix of primary and secondary schools. The South African Human Rights
Commission (the SAHRC), the 24th respondent, participated in the court below and
before us because of its involvement in investigating the procurement and delivery of
school textbooks in Limpopo and because in the view of the other respondents it could
play a role in monitoring the delivery of textbooks pursuant to the order contemplated
and sought by them.

[7] Save where it is necessary to make a distinction, I shall refer to the appellants as
the DBE and the respondents as BEFA. I now turn to deal with the background to the
litigation leading up to the present appeal.

(b)
the intervention must end if the Council disapproves the intervention within 180 days after
the intervention began or by the end of that period has not approved the intervention; and
(c)
the Council must, while the intervention continues, review the intervention regularly and
may make any appropriate recommendations to the national executive.
(3)
National legislation may regulate the process established by this section.
4 We were informed from the bar that the intervention came to an end in January 2015.

[8] During 2012 the DBE formulated and adopted a new national education
curriculum, predicated on the new Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements
(CAPS). The new CAPS curriculum revised the content and learning material of each
learning area. Consequently, new textbooks were prescribed and it was necessary to
see to it that they were available for use in time for the ensuing academic year.

[9] The „roll-out‟ of CAPS was structured incrementally and phased in over a three-
year period. In 2012 grades 1, 2, 3 and 10 were taught under CAPS for the first time. In
2013 CAPS was introduced in grades 4, 5, 6 and 11. In 2014, to complete the picture, it
was introduced in grades 7 to 9 and 12.

[10] It should be acknowledged that the Department of Basic Education faced the
difficulty, during the phasing-in period, of running a new and old curriculum side by side
for different grades. It also meant that considerable human and financial resources had
to be harnessed to meet the challenge. The task was compounded when the Limpopo
Provincial Government became dysfunctional and the National Executive intervened in
terms of s 100 of the Constitution. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the SAHRC it
acknowledges that the delivery of education in South Africa presented challenges of a
peculiar kind. It became involved in investigating the associated problems because of
the crisis in 2012 in relation to the non-delivery in Limpopo of learner and teacher
support material including textbooks. It also registered as a major problem the lack of
ability on the part of the DBE to monitor the delivery of textbooks in provinces. The
problem was exacerbated by the failure to maintain an accurate database.

[11] In order to facilitate the roll-out of the new curriculum and to assist in meeting the
logistical problems associated with the procurement and delivery of the necessary
textbooks across extensive geographical areas a national catalogue of prescribed
textbooks was compiled by the DBE, in-line with CAPS criteria, which included cognitive
development and constitutional values. As the phasing-in of CAPS progressed, old
Provincial Education Department catalogues were discarded. By 2014 the national

catalogue was completed so as to be utilised for the procurement of textbooks. It was
left to each of the nine Provincial Departments of Education to procure textbooks at the
start of each academic year. In Limpopo the procurement and delivery did not go
smoothly. In fact it appears to have been chaotic. I will, in due course, deal with the
DBE‟s version for the delay in procuring and delivering the full complement of textbooks
required by public schools in order for each child in every grade to be in possession of a
textbook for each subject before the commencement of the academic year.

[12] The problems in relation to the procurement and delivery of school textbooks
were peculiar to Limpopo Province. Before us counsel on behalf of the DBE conceded
that, to the best of his knowledge, the shortfall delivery of textbooks, which is the
principal complaint in the current case, did not pertain to other provinces in South Africa.
Counsel also admitted that at the time of the intervention by the National Executive
referred to above, there was an education crisis in Limpopo.

[13] In 2012, with half of the academic year already completed, textbooks in respect
of the introduction of the first phase of the CAPS for grades 1, 2, 3 and 10, had not been
delivered to schools in Limpopo. It is undisputed that the delivery of textbooks only
started taking place after the grant of a court order by Kollapen J on 17 May 2012,
pursuant to an application launched in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria,
by SECTION 27, a public interest litigation entity, which in the present litigation, acts as
the respondents‟ attorney. In terms of that order it was declared that the failure of the
LDOE and the DBE to provide textbooks to those schools was a violation of the
learners‟ rights to a basic education, equality, dignity, the SASA and s 195 of the
Constitution. The LDOE or the DBE were also directed to provide textbooks for grades
1, 2, 3 and 10 on an urgent basis, commencing on 31 May 2012 and concluding by no
later than 15 June 2012. Furthermore, the DBE and the LDOE were ordered to develop
a catch-up or remedial plan for affected grade 10 learners. They were also ordered to
submit monthly reports with regard to the implementation of the plan. The judgment in

that case is reported sub nom Section 27 & others v Minister of Education & another
2013 (2) SA 40 (GNP).5

[14] It is common cause that the time scales set out in the order referred to above
were not met. The parties differed on the extent of the DBE‟s failure to comply with that
order. It is, however, also common cause that the DBE had failed to comply in full with
the court order. That failure necessitated further litigation during June 2012, resulting in
a settlement agreement, in terms of which an amended time table was agreed for the
delivery of textbooks and provision was made for further progress reports to be provided
by the DBE in relation to the catch-up plan. In terms of that agreement, the appellants
undertook to complete delivery of textbooks to learners by 27 June 2012. The
appellants also undertook to provide daily progress reports on their efforts to deliver the
required textbooks. That settlement agreement was made an order of court by Kollapen
J on 5 July 2012.

[15] According to BEFA the progress reports did not match the complaints that
SECTION 27 continued to receive relating to the shortfall in delivery of textbooks. The
parties to the prior litigation had agreed to appoint an independent person, Professor
Mary Metcalfe, to verify the progress reports, she reported as follows:
„72.1
On 27 June 2012, only 15 % of textbooks had been delivered to schools, and not 99 %
as reported by the DBE;
72.2
On 3 July 2012, 48 % of schools had received their textbooks;
72.3
On 11 July 2012, 22 % of schools were still awaiting delivery of their textbooks.‟
Professor Metcalfe also made recommendations about the procurement and delivery of
the textbooks. Notwithstanding the stated shortcomings in the report regarding the
delivery of textbooks in the report, the DBE denied publicly that there were any textbook
shortages. It is common cause that Professor Metcalfe‟s recommendations were not
implemented.

5 The order in the reported judgment appears to be at odds with the order issued by the Registrar.

[16] In the face of the DBE‟s public denials regarding the short delivery of textbooks,
yet further litigation ensued, resulting in Kollapen J granting another order declaring that
there had been non-compliance with the prior orders. The DBE and the LDOE were also
ordered to complete delivery of all outstanding textbooks for 2012 for grades 1, 2, 3 and
10 by 12 October 2012 and to deliver all textbooks for grades 4, 5, 6 and 11 for the
2013 school year by 15 December 2012. For present purposes the ancillary orders are
not material. The time frames reflected in the order had been agreed by the parties.

[17] It is undisputed that in 2013 there was an improvement in textbook delivery,
when compared to 2012. However, there were still instances in that year, of non-
delivery of textbooks and it appears that by the time the school academic year
commenced in 2013, some schools had still not received all the required textbooks for
learners in grades 4, 5, 6 and 11. By March 2014 the delivery of textbooks to learners in
grades 7, 8, 9 and 12 was not completed. There is a dispute about the extent of the
shortfall in the delivery. However, on the DBE‟s own version, there was a total shortage
of at least 22 045 textbooks across all grades in respect of the 39 schools. That figure
may not take into account shortfalls from previous years in relation to other grades. The
statistics supplied by the DBE are not entirely clear.

[18] BEFA alleged that they repeatedly and extensively engaged the appellants,
through SECTION 27, in attempts to resolve the problems of under-delivery. These
attempts ultimately proved unsuccessful. According to BEFA it provided the DBE with all
the information required to facilitate delivery of outstanding textbooks. BEFA found it
disturbing that the DBE was not in possession of crucial data, such as accurate details
concerning learner numbers and a complete schedule of textbook procurement and
delivery. As at 26 March 2014, two days before the end of the first school term, textbook
delivery remained incomplete. BEFA stated that it was concerned that when learners
returned to school for the commencement of the second term of school, on 7 April 2014,
the violation of their rights would continue. BEFA considered that the non-delivery of
textbooks would impact severely and negatively on the ability of learners to prepare
adequately for mid-year exams at the end of the second school term. BEFA was

adamant that there could be no proper preparation without the essential prescribed
textbooks. These concerns were heightened by continued reports from numerous
schools experiencing textbook shortages and by media reports. This led BEFA to
launch an urgent application in the North Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria,
on 27 March 2014 for an order in the following terms:
„2. Declaring that the failure by the first to fifth respondents to ensure the complete delivery of
textbooks to all schools in Limpopo is a violation of the rights to basic education, equality,
dignity and section 165(4) and 195 of the Constitution.
3. Directing the first to fifth respondents to deliver all outstanding textbooks to the schools listed
in Annexure A to this notice of motion on an urgent basis and by no later than 7 April 2014;
4. Directing the first to fifth respondents to lodge an affidavit with this Court by no later than 7
April 2014 confirming full delivery of textbooks to the schools listed in Annexure A to the notice
of motion;
5. Directing the first to fifth respondents to lodge with this Court a plan indicating how they
intend to address textbooks shortages at schools throughout Limpopo, such plan to be lodged
by no later than 10 April 2014;
6. Directing the sixth respondent to monitor the full delivery of textbooks by the first to fifth
respondents to the schools listed in Annexure A to this notice of motion, as well as their
compliance with the plan referred to in paragraph 5 above, in terms of its mandate under section
184(1)(c) of the Constitution to monitor and assess the observance of human rights;
7. Granting leave to the Applicants to approach the above Honourable Court on the same
papers, supplemented as the circumstances may require, for further relief if necessary.‟

[19] The SGBs, who were among the applicants in the court below, set out the
problem attendant upon mitigating steps employed by schools to deal with the non-
delivery of textbooks. The assertions by the SGB‟s and BEFA bear repeating:
„136.1
Some teachers borrow textbooks from neighbouring schools so that they can write up
notes for learners on the blackboard. This is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

136.1.1.
It is not possible to write all the relevant content in detail on the blackboard for
each lesson.
136.1.2.
It is difficult for all of the learners in class to see clearly what is written on the
blackboards, in the way that they would if they were reading a textbook.
136.1.3
Because learners cannot take their learning materials home, they cannot
complete their homework, prepare for lessons or consolidate what they learn in
class.
136.1.4.
Requiring teachers to write out the content of lessons in full on the blackboard is
unduly burdensome.
136.2
As such, this is not a satisfactory replacement for full textbook delivery.
136.3
Teachers borrow textbooks from neighbouring schools to photocopy the relevant
content for learners. However, this is expensive and cannot be sustained.
136.4
Schools use outdated textbooks from the previous curriculum. However, the CAPS
curriculum contains both new content and a new way in which the content is organised.
This is therefore not an appropriate solution.‟

[20] In seeking the orders set out in para 18 above and in asserting the centrality of
textbooks in the realisation of the right to basic education BEFA relied on one of the
DBE‟s own policy documents. I quote the material parts:
„We cannot expect proper learning and teaching to take place where learners do not have
access to textbooks, workbooks, exercise books and stationery during and after school hours.‟
(My emphasis.)

[21] BEFA insisted that the failure by the DBE to ensure full textbook delivery was in
violation of the rights to education, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution.
Furthermore, so it was alleged, it offended against the basic values and principles
concerning public administration in terms of s 195 of the Constitution. Save for the
structural order, the SAHRC was in substantial agreement with the relief sought by the
respondents.

[22] In opposing the relief sought by BEFA, the DBE set out the difficulties associated
with the roll-out of a new curriculum and providing learner and teacher support
materials. It explained, in some detail, how, in addition to textbooks, it provided

workbooks in which learners were required to write out answers to questions. In addition
to the other materials, the DBE also provided mathematics and physical science books
which are voluminous. According to the DBE it devised and implemented a procurement
and delivery plan for the 2014 academic year. The plan provided for procurement and
delivery to schools in all of the nine provinces. It appointed the South African Post Office
(SAPO) as its agent for distributing textbooks in Limpopo. Its plan was based on learner
numbers provided by the LDOE. Part of the problem in the distribution process is that
publishers do not hold sufficient stocks of textbooks and print textbooks upon demand.
Provincial departments were provided with the national catalogue devised by the DBE
and requisitions by the provinces were required to be presented. The DBE insisted that
the greater part of the problems associated with shortfalls in delivery was the incorrect
learner numbers provided by schools in Limpopo, either to the LDOE or the DBE. The
DBE increased the number of textbooks requested by schools by five per cent for
grades 7 to 9 and 18 per cent for grade 12. This, according to the principal deponent on
behalf of the DBE, was to correct discrepancies between the submissions from schools
and data that the LDOE held on its Education Information System database.
Significantly, no information by the DBE is provided for the failure to interrogate the
discrepancies and to ensure the accuracy of its own database.

[23] The following part of the delivery programme, decided after a meeting between
representatives of the LDOE, DBE and representatives of schools during December
2013, is noteworthy:
„In order to ensure 100 % delivery, the provision of information timeously by schools, circuits
and districts is critical.
A circular and template was sent to schools, circuits and districts, with the reporting template for
shortages.
All shortages and non-delivery must be reported immediately by 4 December 2013. All mop-up
must be completed by 31 January 2014.‟

[24] In short, the DBE‟s case on the logistics of the delivery and the failure to provide
a textbook for every child appears to be that it took all the necessary steps to put in
place a proper management plan and that the logistical failure should be laid at the door

of the 39 schools about which BEFA engaged the Department and other schools that
provided incorrect data. The dysfunctional Provincial Government, according to the DBE
added to logistical headwinds, complicating the delivery process. With the advent of the
2014 school academic year the DBE placed an order with publishers to print and deliver
406 520 textbooks during January 2014. On 20 March 2014, after further reported
shortages, the DBE placed an additional order for a further 387 040 textbooks. The
problems referred to above were compounded by difficulties that ensued with over-
delivery to some schools by SAPO. Those books had to be retrieved and rerouted. The
DBE also complained about under-retrieval of books from learners at the end of an
academic year.

[25] As recorded above, there is an ongoing dispute between BEFA and the DBE
concerning the precise number of outstanding textbooks. BEFA was adamant that it
engaged on an on-going basis with the Department in respect of shortages reported to it
and this appears to be borne out by correspondence between them. In its replying
affidavit, BEFA is scathing about the failure by the DBE and the LDOE to maintain
accurate statistics as to the number of schools and learner enrolment in each school. A
reliable database, they contend, is essential to ensure proper procurement and delivery
in advance of an academic year. BEFA insisted that it had supplied the details of
textbook shortages to the DBE on at least seven occasions since January 2014.

[26] It is also necessary to record that, in opposing the relief sought by BEFA, the
DBE adopted the attitude that it would take disciplinary steps against school principals
and other officials for channelling their complaints about short delivery through
SECTION 27 and BEFA rather than engaging directly with the DBE or the LDOE.

[27] At the time that the application was launched in the court below, on the DBE‟s
own version regarding the 39 schools in respect of which it had engaged with BEFA,
there was a total shortfall in excess of 20 000 textbooks across all grades. In a
supplementary opposing affidavit dated 21 April 2014 the appellants indicated that they
were awaiting a further 158 856 textbooks from publishers.

[28] The following part of the supplementary opposing affidavit by the DBE is worth
noting:
„Having regard to the fact that the total number of 6 945 160 textbooks have been ordered in
respect of the CAPS-aligned curriculum, the current shortfall is approximately 2,29 % thereof.‟
According to the DBE, the shortfall of 2,29 per cent appears to relate to the total
required textbooks for all schools within Limpopo across all grades. This is contested by
BEFA, who assert that it only relates to grades 7, 8, 9 and 12. What is clear, however, is
that on the DBE‟s own version, there is still a shortfall of at least 2,29 per cent.

[29] Having set out the logistical difficulties in relation to the delivery of textbooks and
apportioning blame to schools, the DBE resorted to a further justification for failure to
deliver textbooks before the commencement of the 2014 academic year, namely,
budgetary constraints. It stated that the requisitions presented to it required an amount
of R768 million to procure learner and teacher support materials for grades 7 to 9 and
12 alone, whilst only R480 million was made available to LDOE by the National
Treasury for all grades. After an accommodation was reached between the DBE,
National Treasury and the Provincial Treasury, a total budget of R620 million was
raised, of which R475 million was utilised for CAPS aligned textbooks. This left the DBE
and the LDOE with a shortfall of R293 million to procure learner and teacher support
materials for grades 7, 8, 9 and 12. According to the DBE, because of budgetary
constraints, the LDOE was not in a position to procure any „top-up‟ textbooks for other
grades in respect of which the CAPS curriculum was implemented during 2012 and
2013. Thus, a decision was taken that outstanding books could only be acquired from
the 2014/2015 budget. The DBE‟s financial year commenced on 1 April 2014. The
contention on behalf of the DBE is that if it were to have authorised expenditure beyond
its budget, its accounting office would have transgressed the provisions of the Public
Finance Management Act 1 of 1999. The concomitant appears to be that a court cannot
make an order in the face of budgetary constraints which is within the province of one or
both of the other arms of government. An allied basis for resisting BEFA‟s application

was that the order sought, if granted, would offend against the doctrine of the separation
of powers. The relevant paragraph of the opposing affidavit is worth repeating.
„Should that finding be made by the above Honourable Court, the Respondents have been
advised by their legal representatives, that a Court of law then will not interfere in the running of
the affairs of a Department on the principle of a separation between executive and judicial
powers.‟

[30] In adjudicating the application in the court below, Tuchten J considered the
provisions of s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and had regard to the decision of the
Constitutional Court in Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & others v
Essay NO & others (Centre for Child Law & another as Amici Curiae) [2011] ZACC 13;
2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC) and said the following about the right to basic education as
provided for in that subsection of the Constitution (para 52):
„The delivery of textbooks to certain learners but not others cannot constitute fulfilment of
the right. Section 29(1)(a) confers the right of a basic education to everyone. If there is one
learner who is not timeously provided with her textbooks, her right has been infringed. It is of no
moment at this level of the enquiry that all the other learners have been given their books.
In paragraph 55 of his judgment, Tuchten J concluded as follows:
„It follows then, that because textbooks were not provided to all the learners in Limpopo
before the commencement of the curricula for which they were required, ie at the beginning of
the academic year, the rights of learners were violated. It is in my judgment appropriate, just
and equitable that a declaration to this effect should issue.‟
However, the learned judge declined to grant the structural relief sought by BEFA. He
went on to make the following order:
„1.
It is declared that the content of the right to basic education in s 29(1)(a) of the
Constitution includes:
1.1
the right of every learner at a public school as contemplated in the Schools Act,
84 of 1996, in Limpopo to be provided with every textbook prescribed for that
learner‟s grade;
1.2
the right of every such learner to be provided with every such textbook before the
teaching of the curriculum for which such textbook is prescribed is due to
commence.

2.
It is declared that the non-delivery to certain of such learners of certain textbooks
prescribed for such learners‟ grades in the 2014 academic year before the teaching of
the curricula for which such textbooks were prescribed was due to commence was a
violation of such learners‟ right to a basic education in s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and
of their rights to equality and dignity in ss 9 and 10 respectively of the Constitution.
3.
It is noted that the first to fifth respondents have undertaken to ensure that delivery to all
such learners of all textbooks required for the 2014 academic year will be completed as
follows:
3.1
those textbooks required for grades 7-9 and 12 by 8 May 2014; and
3.2
those textbooks required by the other grades by 6 June 2014;
4.
The first and third respondents are both ordered, to the extent that each of them is able
to do so, to provide the applicants, through the applicants‟ attorney of record, and the
sixth respondent [the SAHRC] with an affidavit setting out:
4.1
the submissions, with vouchers where reasonably possible, to the fiscal
authorities of the national Department of Basic Education and the department of
education within the provincial government of Limpopo in support of these
departments‟ requests for funds for textbooks for learners at public schools in
Limpopo for the academic year 2015; and
4.2
particulars of the funds so to be made available for that purpose (“the Limpopo
textbook budget allocation”), similarly with vouchers where reasonably possible.
5.
The affidavit referred to in paragraph 4 of this order must be provided to the applicants
by no later than one month after the last of such respondents has been informed of the
Limpopo textbook budget allocation.
6.
The first respondent must pay the applicants‟ costs in this application.‟

[31] The DBE appeals against those orders and BEFA cross-appeals against the
refusal by Tuchten J to find that the DBE had failed to comply with the previous court
orders and against his refusal to grant the structural orders set out in para 18 above.
Before us BEFA did not persist in pursuing the structural orders and the cross-appeal
was confined to the refusal to hold that the DBE had failed to comply with the previous
court orders. The appeal and cross-appeal are before us with the leave of the court
below.

[32] For completeness, it is necessary to record that before us, BEFA applied to lead
further evidence on appeal, which relates to the DBE‟s failure to comply with the
undertakings captured in the order made by Tuchten J. There was no opposition to the
application and the court allowed the new evidence. It appears from an investigation
conducted by BEFA, which involved visits to a number of schools in Limpopo by its
members and also by representatives of the SAHRC, that the undertakings referred to
had not been complied with. Fifteen schools were visited between 15 and 16 May 2014,
and it was revealed that eight of them had not received all the textbooks for grades 7 to
9, and 12 and that a total of 7 203 textbooks were outstanding. Fourteen other schools
were visited from 17 to 19 June 2014, and this revealed that in ten of those there was a
total of 3 320 textbooks for grades 1 to 6, 10 and 11 outstanding and a total of 5 685
outstanding for grades 7 to 9 and 12. When confronted about these breaches, the
DBE‟s attorneys appeared to blame the publishers for not adhering to time frames. The
facts stated in the new evidence that we allowed were not contested.

[33] It is difficult to discern from the affidavits in the court below what the parameters
of the DBE‟s case are. At first blush it appears to be that it had attempted as best as
possible to comply with its obligations to provide the necessary learner and teacher
support materials, but was hampered by a lack of co-operation on the part of affected
schools. It relied on budgetary constraints as a further justification and considered the
relief sought to be beyond the reach of a court. In that regard it invoked the doctrine of
the separation of powers. Before us counsel on behalf of the DBE was hard-pressed to
present a coherent basis for resisting the relief sought by BEFA. Counsel submitted that
the relief sought demanded a standard of perfection that could not be met. Primarily,
though, the DBE‟s case appeared to be that s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution did not
require of it that each learner in every school be provided with a textbook. The DBE
considered the mitigating measures it had suggested and that had been taken by
schools to deal with the shortage of textbooks, to be enough to meet the obligation to
provide a basic education in terms of s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. It will be recalled
that, as reflected in para 19 above, teachers were required to write the content of
textbooks on blackboards for those learners who did not have textbooks to copy and

schools that did not have textbooks were required to consider borrowing textbooks from
neighbouring schools in order to photocopy the relevant content. Lastly, schools were
required to use textbooks from the previous curriculum whilst bearing in mind the
differences in methodology. BEFA and SGB‟s responses to these mitigating measures
are as set out above.

[34] It was also contended on behalf of the DBE that the order granted by the court
below was such that it involved an intrusion into the territory of the other arms of
government and that it violated the doctrine of the separation of powers. I turn to deal
with whether there is any merit to the DBE‟s resistance to the application by BEFA.

[35] As always, when there is an assertion of a violation of a fundamental right the
starting point is the relevant provision of the Constitution. In this case it is s 29(1)(a) that
requires scrutiny. Section 29 reads as follows:
„(1) Everyone has the right –
(a)
to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
(b)
to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make
progressively available and accessible.‟

[36] In Juma Musjid6 the Constitutional court compared s 29(1)(a) to other socio-
economic rights, for example, the right to housing under s 26 of the Constitution.
Section 26(2) provides that the State „must take reasonable legislative and other
measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this
right‟. Section 29(1)(a) has „no internal limitation requiring that the right be
“progressively realised” within “available resources” subject to “reasonable legislative
measures”.‟ The Constitutional Court stated emphatically that the right to a basic
education entrenched in s 29(1)(a) is „immediately realisable‟ and may only, in terms of
s 36(1) of the Constitution, be limited in terms of a law of general application that is

6 Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & others v Essay NO & others (Centre for Child
Law & another as Amici Curiae) [2011] ZACC 13; 2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC), para 37.

„reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity,
equality and freedom‟.7

[37] The right in s 29(1)(a) is distinct from the right to „further education‟ provided for
in s 29(1)(b). In Juma Musjid, the Constitutional Court considered it important that the
legislature, in recognising the distinction between „basic‟ and „further education‟, made
attendance at school compulsory in terms of s 3 of SASA for learners from the age of
seven until the age of 15 or until he or she reached the ninth grade, whichever occurred
first.8 The Constitutional Court took the view that the aforesaid statutory provision, read
with the entrenched right to basic education in s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, indicated
„the importance of the right to basic education for the transformation of our society‟.9 In
Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education & another v Hoërskool
Ermelo & another [2009] ZACC 32; 2010 (2) SA 415 (CC), the Constitutional Court
recognised the importance of education in redressing the entrenched inequalities
caused by apartheid and its significance in transforming our society.  Moseneke DCJ
said the following: (paras 45-47)
„Apartheid has left us with many scars. The worst of these must be the vast discrepancy in
access to public and private resources. The cardinal fault line of our past oppression ran along
race, class and gender. It authorised a hierarchy of privilege and disadvantage. Unequal access
to opportunity prevailed in every domain. Access to private or public education was no
exception. While much remedial work has been done since the advent of constitutional
democracy, sadly, deep social disparities and resultant social inequity are still with us.
It is so that white public schools were hugely better resourced than black schools. They were
lavishly treated by the apartheid government. It is also true that they served and were shored up
by relatively affluent white communities. On the other hand, formerly black public schools have
been and by and large remain scantily resourced. They were deliberately funded stingily by the
apartheid government. Also, they served in the main and were supported by relatively deprived
black communities. That is why perhaps the most abiding and debilitating legacy of our past is
an unequal distribution of skills and competencies acquired through education.

7 Para 37.
8 Para 38.
9 Para 38.

In an unconcealed design, the Constitution ardently demands that this social unevenness be
addressed by a radical transformation of society as a whole and of public education in
particular.‟

[38] The legislature took seriously its constitutional obligations in relation to the right
to basic education. Section 12 of SASA makes it incumbent upon the MEC to provide
public schools for the education of learners out of funds appropriated for that purpose
by the provincial legislature. In the period of an intervention by the National Executive
the Minister is required in terms of s 100 of the Constitution to take any „appropriate
steps‟ to ensure the fulfilment of a province‟s executive obligations. Importantly, in terms
of sections 44 and 104 read with Schedule 4 of the Constitution, education (excluding
tertiary education) is a functional area of concurrent national and provincial legislative
competence.

[39] In terms of s 3 of the National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 (NEPA), the
Minister is vested with the power to determine national education policy in accordance
with NEPA and the Constitution. Significantly, sections 4(a)(i), (ii) and (iv) of this Act
provide:
„The policy contemplated in s 3 shall be directed toward –
(a)
the advancement and protection of the fundamental rights of every person
guaranteed in terms of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, and in terms of international
conventions ratified by Parliament, and in particular the right -
(i)
of every person to be protected against unfair discrimination within or by
an education department or education institution on any ground
whatsoever;
(ii)
of every person to basic education and equal access to education
institutions;
. . .
(iv)
of every child in respect of his or her education.‟

[40] The constitutional and statutory scheme applicable to education is one in terms
of which there is an interconnection between national and provincial government to
ensure constitutional compliance. The right to a basic education is thus constitutionally
entrenched and statutorily enforced. Government, in recognition of its constitutional
obligations has ensured that in the budget approved by it, basic education receives the
single largest allocation. Its three year expenditure plan tabled as part of the 2015
budget envisages expenditure in relation to basic education during that period in excess
of R640 billion.10 It cannot be emphasised enough that basic education should be seen
as a primary driver of transformation in South Africa.

[41] Returning to the provisions of s 29(1)(a) it is necessary to recognise, as counsel
on behalf of BEFA readily conceded, that it does not spell out the content of the right to
basic education. The centrality of textbooks in the realisation of the right to a basic
education is uncontested. The DBE, however, insisted that the right to a basic education
did not mean that each learner in a class has the right to his or her own textbook. It
adopts the position that its own policy documents indicate only that the DBE set itself
the „lofty‟ ideal of providing a textbook for each learner but that it could not be held to
that ideal or what it describes as the „standard of perfection‟.

[42] I agree with counsel on behalf of BEFA that the DBE did not only set itself a „lofty‟
ideal but that its policy and actions, as set out in the affidavits filed on its behalf, all
indicate that it had committed to providing a textbook for each learner across all grades.
The content of the s 29(1)(a) right is also determined in the DBE‟s „Action Plan to 2014
– Towards the Realisation of Schooling in 2025‟. That certainly is what it achieved in
pursuit of its own policy in respect of the other eight provinces and on its version of
events for almost 98 per cent of learners in Limpopo. I also agree with the contention on
behalf of BEFA that in instituting the application in the court below, it was merely
seeking to hold government to its own standard. Simply put, the DBE set out to provide
a textbook to every learner before the start of the 2014 academic year but fell short in its

10 Nhlanhla Nene „2015 Budget Speech‟, delivered 25 February 2015, available at
http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2015/speech/speech.pdf, accessed 26
November 2015.

planning. BEFA sought to hold the DBE to the standard it set for itself, practically and
not idealistically.

[43] The truth is that the DBE‟s management plan was inadequate and its logistical
ability woeful. One would have expected proper planning before the implementation of
the new curriculum.  This does not appear to have occurred.  The DBE also had a
three-year implementation period during which it could have conducted proper
budgetary planning, perfected its database, and ensured accuracy in procurement and
efficiency in delivery. It achieved exactly the opposite and blamed all and sundry. It
lacked introspection and diligence. It is notable, and conceded by counsel on behalf of
the DBE, that there is no single statement anywhere in the affidavits filed on its behalf to
the effect that it would be unable to procure the funds necessary to meet the shortfall
either at provincial or national level, utilising existing treasury legislation, including
providing for budgetary changes during a financial year. The DBE‟s reliance on
budgetary constraints and its complaint that the order granted by the court below
violated the doctrine of the separation of powers is fallacious and appears contrived.
The DBE, the State in the present case, had decided on a policy which it started
implementing and shortly before the final, and on its version, minor hurdle, it stumbled.
In the present circumstances, there is no intrusion by the judiciary into the domain of the
other two arms of government. The undertaking by the DBE which is encapsulated in
para 3 of the order by Tuchten J and the prior undertakings contained in orders by
Kollapen J fly in the face of the contention on behalf of the DBE that it is restricted by
budgetary constraints. For all the reasons set out in this paragraph the reliance by the
DBE on budgetary constraints can rightly be discounted.

[44] There is in this case no impediment of any kind to the vindication of learners‟
rights in terms of s 29 of the Constitution. That right is, as determined by the
Constitutional Court in Juma Musjid, immediately realisable.

[45] „Our Constitution entrenches both civil and political rights and social and
economic rights. All the rights in our Bill of Rights are inter-related and mutually
supporting.‟11 Section 9 of the Constitution provides:
„(1)
Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the
law.
(2)
Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the
achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance
persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
(3)
The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or
more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social
origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture,
language and birth.
(4)
No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more
grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or
prohibit unfair discrimination.
(5)
Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is
established that the discrimination is fair.‟

[46] I agree with Kollapen J in Section 2712 that the failure to provide textbooks to
learners in schools in Limpopo in the circumstances referred to above is a violation of
the rights to a basic education, equality, dignity, SASA and s 195 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court, in Pretoria City Council v Walker [1998] ZACC 1; 1998 (2) SA
363 (CC), in dealing with s 8 of the Interim Constitution, which entrenched the right to
equality and equal protection under the law and which prohibited unfair direct or indirect
discrimination, said the following (paras 30–31):
„Section 8(2) prohibits unfair discrimination which takes place “directly or indirectly”. This is the
first occasion on which this Court has had to consider the difference between direct and indirect
discrimination and whether such difference has any bearing on the s 8 analysis as developed in
the four judgments to which I have referred.

11 See in this regard, Government of the Republic of South Africa & others v Grootboom & others [2000]
ZACC 19; 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) para 23.
12 Section 27 & others v Minister of Education & another 2013 (2) SA 40 (GNP).  I note again that the
order in the reported judgment is different to that issued by the Registrar.

The inclusion of both direct and indirect discrimination within the ambit of the prohibition
imposed by s 8(2) evinces a concern for the consequences rather than the form of conduct. It
recognises that conduct which may appear to be neutral and non-discriminatory may
nonetheless result in discrimination and, if it does, that it falls within the purview of s 8(2).‟

[47] In Harksen v Lane NO & others [1997] ZACC 12; 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC), the
Constitutional Court set a two-stage enquiry to determine whether differentiation
amounted to unfair discrimination. The majority of the court said the following (para 54):
„Firstly, does the differentiation amount to “discrimination”? If it is on a specified ground, then
discrimination will have been established. If it is not on a specified ground, then whether or not
there is discrimination will depend upon whether, objectively, the ground is based on attributes
and characteristics which have the potential to impair the fundamental human dignity of persons
as human beings or to affect them adversely in a comparably serious manner.
If the differentiation amounts to “discrimination”, does it amount to “unfair discrimination”? If it
has been found to have been on a specified ground, then unfairness will be presumed. If on an
unspecified ground, unfairness will have to be established by the complainant. The test of
unfairness focuses primarily on the impact of the discrimination on the complainant and others
in his or her situation.‟

[48] The State is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against any person whether
on listed grounds or not. SASA and NEPA envisage equality of opportunity for learners.
SASA‟s preamble recognises that historically, our education system was based on
racial inequality and segregation and those past injustices have to be remedied. Before
us the DBE conceded that presently, textbook shortages in other provinces is not a
problem. On the DBE‟s version, approximately 97 per cent of student across the
province have textbooks. This means that the approximately three per cent of the
learners who did not receive textbooks were treated differentially. They were being
discriminated against. There is no justification for such discrimination. BEFA is litigating
on behalf of all the learners in the affected schools in Limpopo.

[49] Clearly, learners who do not have textbooks are adversely affected. Why should
they suffer the indignity of having to borrow from neighbouring schools or copy from a

blackboard which cannot, in any event, be used to write the totality of the content of the
relevant part of the textbook? Why should poverty stricken schools and learners have to
be put to the expense of having to photocopy from the books of other schools? Why
should some learners be able to work from textbooks at home and others not? There
can be no doubt that those without textbooks are being unlawfully discriminated against.

[50] The DBE did not take issue with international publications cited by BEFA and the
SAHRC13 which indicate that, particularly in respect of rural communities, research has
shown that they benefit the most from the use of textbooks. The DBE‟s attitude was that
in the developing countries in which the research was conducted (which included
Uganda, Malaysia, Chile and Brazil) there was a ratio between the number of textbooks
and learners and that not every learner was provided with a textbook. The countries
involved are different from ours. Their constitutional and statutory schemes in relation to
education are different. In this country the Minister, acting in terms of the Constitution
and legislation, took a decision that textbooks were essential to promote and protect the
right to a basic education and devised a plan towards providing a textbook for every
learner. The plan was flawed. The law is clear. In the circumstances referred to above,
the DBE is obliged to provide a textbook to every learner to ensure compliance with
s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. We must guard against failing those who are most
vulnerable. In this case we are dealing with the rural poor and with children. They are
deserving of Constitutional protection.

[51] Tuchten J should have granted the order sought by BEFA declaring that the DBE
had failed to comply with the orders made by Kollapen J. It is clear that there was non-
compliance by the DBE. The difficulties that they faced were largely of their own

13 We were referred to the following publications: Fuller, B (1986) „Raising School Quality in Developing
Countries: What Investments Boost Learning?‟ World Bank Discussion Papers (1985), available at
http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1985/09/01/000009265_39806231519
15/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf, accessed 26 November 2015; Paul Glewwe, Michael Kremer and
Sylvie Moulin „Many Children Left Behind? Textbooks and Test Scores in Kenya‟ (2009) 1(1) American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics 112, available at
http://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/33%20Textbooks%20Kenya%20Jan%2020
09.pdf, accessed 26 November 2015.

making. Moreover, similar to the time frames provided by the order of the court below,
there were undertakings that were made an order of court by Kollapen J. These were
not complied with.

[52] There is one further aspect that requires to be addressed. Parts of the order by
Tuchten J have been overtaken by time. It is thus necessary to re-craft the order in
order to deal with the obligation of the DBE before the advent of the 2016 school
academic year, and successive years. For the reasons set out in para 43 above, there
is no need in the re-crafting of the order to deal with budgetary issues. What is required
is an order setting out in clear terms that s 29(1)(a) requires the State to provide each
learner in Limpopo with a prescribed textbook per subject at the commencement of the
academic year.

[53] The following order is made:
1.
The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.
2.
The cross-appeal in relation to the failure by the court below to declare that there
had been non-compliance by the Department of Basic Education with the court
order granted by Kollapen J is upheld with costs including the costs of two
counsel.
3.
The following orders are substituted for the orders of the Gauteng Division of the
High Court:
„1.
It is declared that s 29(1)(a) of the Constitution entitles every learner at public
schools in Limpopo to be provided with every textbook prescribed for his or her
grade before commencement of the teaching of the course for which the textbook
is prescribed.
It is declared that it is the duty of the State, in terms of s 7(2) of the Constitution,
to fulfil the s 29(1)(a) right of every learner by providing him or her with every
textbook prescribed for his or her grade before commencement of the teaching of
the course for which the textbook is prescribed.
It is declared that the National Department of Basic Education and the Limpopo
Department of Education violated the s 29(1)(a), s 9 (equality) and s 10 (dignity)

right of learners in Limpopo in 2014 by failing to provide all of them with every
prescribed textbook before commencement of the teaching of the courses for
which they were prescribed.
It is declared that the National Department of Basic Education and the Limpopo
Department of Education failed to comply with paragraph 6 of the order made by
Kollapen J on 4 October 2012 that they “deliver all textbooks to schools for
grades 4, 5, 6 and 11 for the 2013 year by 15 December 2012”.
The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants‟ costs including the costs of
two counsel.‟

_________________________
M S Navsa
Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants:
M C Erasmus SC (with E M Baloyi-
Mere)

Instructed by:

The State Attorney, Pretoria

The State Attorney, Bloemfontein

For the First to Twenty Third Respondents:
W Trengove SC (with A Hassim)

Instructed by

SECTION 27, Johannesburg

Webbers, Bloemfontein

For the Twenty Fourth Respondent:

T Ngcukaitobi (with F Hobden)

Instructed by:
The South African Human Rights
Commission, Braamfontein
The South African Human Rights
Commission, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

2 December 2015

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education For All (20793/2014) [2015] ZASCA 198
(2 December 2015)

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the appeal by the Minister of Basic Education
and others (the DBE) against the decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, and
upheld the cross-appeal by Basic Education For All and others.  In the result, the SCA (i) upheld an
order by the court below that the DBE’s failure to provide each learner at public schools in Limpopo
with a textbook for each subject, prior to the commencement of the 2014 school year, was an
infringement of their rights to a basic education in terms of s 29(1)(a), equality in terms of s 9, and
dignity in terms of s 10 of the Constitution, and ancillary relief; and (ii) declared that the DBE had
failed to comply with a previous high court order relating to the delivery of textbooks in respect of the
2012 school year.

The case concerned the DBE’s failure to provide learners at public schools in Limpopo with textbooks
following the roll-out of a new curriculum starting in 2012. By May of that year, the DBE had not
ensured that each learner had a textbook for each subject, and eventually the high court (in a
separate case) ordered that this be rectified according to a timeline.  The DBE did not comply with
that timeline, and also failed to ensure that each learner had a textbook for each subject in 2013 and
2014.  The issues before the SCA were whether (i) the failure in 2014 by the DBE to provide each
learner with a textbook for each subject infringed their right to basic education; and (ii) whether a
declaration should be issued that the DBE had failed to comply with the order of the high court issued
in 2012.

The SCA stated that it ‘cannot be emphasised enough that basic education should be seen as a
primary driver of transformation in South Africa’, and affirmed the following:
‘We must guard against failing those who are most vulnerable. In this case we are dealing with the rural poor and
with children. They are deserving of Constitutional protection.’

The SCA acknowledged that the Constitution does not define the content of the right to a basic
education. However, where the DBE itself had recognised the centrality of textbooks in the realisation
of the right, and had adopted a clear policy that each learner must be provided with a textbook for
each subject, the SCA held that this did not merely constitute a ‘lofty’ ideal which the DBE should not
be strictly held to. Instead, the DBE (acting as the State in this instance) had given content to the
right, which was immediately realisable in terms of s 29(1)(a). The SCA held further that the judiciary
was not intruding into the domain of the other two arms of government, as the court was merely
holding the DBE to the standard that it (ie the State) had set for itself, and which it had failed to meet
due to poor planning and implementation. The SCA found as follows:
‘The truth is that the DBE’s management plan was inadequate and its logistical ability woeful. One would have
expected proper planning before the implementation of the new curriculum.  This does not appear to have
occurred.  The DBE also had a three-year implementation period during which it could have conducted proper
budgetary planning, perfected its database, and ensured accuracy in procurement and efficiency in delivery. It
achieved exactly the opposite and blamed all and sundry.’

The SCA also noted that this same standard was applicable throughout the country, and had been
complied with in every province except Limpopo.  The court held that the DBE’s conduct thus
amounted to unfair discrimination against the affected learners, stating the following:
‘Clearly, learners who do not have textbooks are adversely affected. Why should they suffer the indignity of
having to borrow from neighbouring schools or copy from a blackboard which cannot, in any event, be used to
write the totality of the content of the relevant part of the textbook? Why should poverty stricken schools and
learners have to be put to the expense of having to photocopy from the books of other schools? Why should
some children be able to work from textbooks at home and others not? There can be no doubt that those without
textbooks are being unlawfully discriminated against.’

Accordingly, the SCA upheld the court below’s order that the DBE had infringed the affected learners’
rights to a basic education, equality and dignity.  However, it noted that parts of that order had been
overtaken by time, and it was thus necessary to re-craft it to deal with the DBE’s obligations in
respect of future years, including the 2015 school year.

--- ends ---