The Information Regulator has suffered another legal setback in its protracted battle to prevent matriculation results from being published in newspapers and online platforms, after the Gauteng High Court dismissed its application for leave to appeal on Wednesday.
Judge Omphemetse Mooki, sitting with two fellow judges, ruled that the regulator has no reasonable prospect of success should the matter proceed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The decision means the Department of Basic Education may continue publishing matric results using examination numbers, a practice that has become the subject of intense legal scrutiny since 2022.
The regulator retains one option: petitioning the Supreme Court of Appeal directly for permission to appeal, effectively bypassing the high court’s assessment.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental disagreement over privacy rights and public interest. The Information Regulator maintains that publishing results using examination numbers constitutes a breach of the Protection of Personal Information Act, arguing that learners could potentially identify their peers through sequential numbers and seating arrangements.
However, four separate court orders, including the December 2025 ruling by a full bench, have consistently held that examination-number-only publication does not amount to processing personally identifiable information. The court described the regulator’s arguments as “fanciful” and unrealistic, finding that no reasonable identification of individuals occurs when only exam numbers and results appear in publications, without names, surnames or identity numbers.
The legal saga began in 2022 when the Department of Basic Education attempted to halt the traditional publication of matric results. Civil rights organisation AfriForum, alongside other parties, challenged this decision in court. Judges ruled in favour of continued publication, determining that transparency in educational outcomes serves the public interest.
The conflict intensified at the end of 2024 when the regulator issued an enforcement notice on six November, ordering the department to provide a written undertaking within 31 days that it would not publish the 2024 matriculation results in newspapers. The notice directed that results should only be made available through schools or the department’s secure SMS platform.
When the department failed to comply, the regulator escalated matters by issuing an infringement notice on 23 December, imposing an administrative fine of R5-million. The regulator then launched an urgent application seeking an interdict to prevent publication of the 2024 results.
That urgent application collapsed spectacularly on eight January 2025 when the high court struck the matter from the roll, finding the regulator had not demonstrated genuine urgency. The court noted the regulator “took more than ten months” to finalise its assessment and issue the enforcement notice, and that any urgency was “self-created”. The regulator was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including those of senior counsel.
Despite this setback, the Information Regulator pursued the matter on its merits. In December 2025, a full bench of the Gauteng High Court delivered a comprehensive ruling that not only permitted publication but also set aside the regulator’s enforcement and infringement notices. The court awarded costs against the regulator.
According to Alana Bailey, AfriForum’s head of Cultural Affairs, it is a relief that the dispute over the publication of matric results has now finally been resolved. “This is a victory for the publication of information that is in the public interest,” she says.
Bailey stresses that the outcome of the case affects more issues than just the publication of matric results.
“Several research fields work with information of individuals who can only be identified by numbers or codes. This is specifically used to protect their right to privacy and anonymity. The fact that the case has now been concluded means that such data can be used and essential research can continue without fear that it can cause problems.”
The department’s position throughout the litigation has been that the pseudonymised format, comprising examination numbers and results only, strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and privacy protection. This method has been standard practice for decades, allowing educational institutions, researchers and the public to analyse pass rates and performance trends whilst safeguarding individual learners’ identities.
ALSO READ: Matric results publication remains in limbo as information regulator appeals court decision
Legal experts suggest the case highlights tensions between data protection legislation and established practices that pre-date comprehensive privacy laws. The Protection of Personal Information Act came into effect in July 2020, introducing stringent controls over how personal information may be collected, stored and disseminated.
The Information Regulator, established under POPIA, has broad powers to investigate complaints and issue enforcement notices where it believes the Act has been contravened. However, Wednesday’s ruling underscores that these powers are subject to judicial oversight, and that courts will assess whether the regulator’s interpretation of the law is correct.
With the high court now having refused leave to appeal, the regulator faces the prospect of directly petitioning the Supreme Court of Appeal, a process that requires convincing appellate judges that the matter raises questions of law sufficiently important to warrant further examination. Legal practitioners note that direct petitions face a high threshold, particularly where multiple courts have already considered and rejected the same arguments.
For now, the publication of matriculation results using examination numbers continues on solid legal footing, with four court orders affirming its lawfulness and the Information Regulator having exhausted its initial avenue of appeal.
ALSO READ: Matric results to be published in newspapers, education department confirms
