Mpumalanga pupils seek Constitutional Court reprieve in fight for matric results

A four-year battle over withheld matric results has reached the Constitutional Court, where former Mpumalanga learners are fighting to reclaim their educational futures after a legal setback overturned an earlier judgment ordering the release of their examination results.

The government has indicated its intention to oppose the Constitutional Court application, setting the stage for another legal confrontation arising from allegations of mass cheating during the 2022 National Senior Certificate examinations.

The case involves Kgothatso Neo Molapo, Archiebold Thabang Mathebula, Jabulile Mabaso and other applicants seeking to overturn a November 2025 judgment of a full court of the Mpumalanga High Court.

The dispute has had painful consequences, including the case of Rence Mofeny Manentja, who says he was deregistered from the University of Limpopo last year because he could not produce his matric certificate.

In his supporting affidavit Manentja, who was studying towards a Bachelor of Science, also describes difficulties involving National Student Financial Aid Scheme funding.

According to the judgment, the controversy began when the results of 896 learners from various Mpumalanga schools were withheld after allegations of mass cheating four years ago.

Of these, 510 learners instituted review proceedings, challenging the administrative decisions that prevented them from receiving their results.

Acting Judge Johannes Roelofse set aside the department’s March 31, 2023 decision and ordered the release of the exam results. However, the provincial education authorities successfully challenged that judgment before a full court comprising Deputy Judge President Thifhelimbilu Ratshibvumo and acting judges N Mayet and HF Fourie.

The November 19 judgment last year overturned the earlier order and dismissed the learners’ review application.

The decision turned principally on whether the learners had exhausted the internal appeal procedures available under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act before approaching the courts.

The judges found that although some learners had attempted to appeal or requested information from the department, the internal remedies had not been exhausted. The court also found that the learners had not applied for an exemption from that requirement when instituting their review proceedings.

The judgment acknowledged the importance of protecting the integrity of matric examinations, while adding that innocent learners should not be unfairly implicated in misconduct.

The applicants will now argue before the highest court in the land that their dispute raises constitutional questions about administrative justice, access to education and the consequences of prolonged delays.

Their application seeks condonation for late filing, urgent directions and permission to appeal to the apex court without first approaching the Supreme Court of Appeal.

They want the November judgment to be overturned and for the Constitutional Court to reinstate the order requiring the release of examination results.

Alternatively, they are seeking whatever relief the Constitutional Court considers just and equitable. The applicants’ lawyers argue that the educational prejudice suffered by the learners and subsequent attempts to obtain administrative redress justify constitutional intervention.

The case has also raised questions about whether procedural requirements should prevent courts from examining allegations of administrative wrongdoing where learners face prolonged uncertainty over their examination results.

The full court, however, held that exhausting internal remedies was a legal requirement and that the learners had failed to seek the necessary exemption.

In its judgment, the court stressed that allegations of irregularities did not automatically excuse litigants from complying with the statutory requirements governing judicial reviews.

The government’s notice of intention to oppose, dated October 14, identifies the Minister of Basic Education, the department’s director-general, the Mpumalanga education MEC and the provincial head of department as respondents.

Mpumalanga Department of Education spokesperson Jasper Zwane did not respond to Sunday World’s enquiry by the time of publication.