The Mpumalanga division of the High Court has overturned a lower court’s order that would have compelled education authorities to release examination results for hundreds of learners implicated in a massive cheating scandal during the 2022 matric exams, delivering a significant legal victory to the Department of Basic Education.
In a judgment handed down on 19 November, a full bench comprising deputy judge president T.V. Ratshibvumo and acting judges N. Mayet and H.F. Fourie set aside the August 2024 ruling that had directed the department to release results for 510 learners from various schools across Mpumalanga. The appeal court found that the learners had failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the courts, a critical procedural requirement under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
The cheating allegations centred on claims that learners from schools in the Bohlabelo district near Bushbuckridge had paid teachers up to R1,500 to join WhatsApp groups where examination answers were shared. One group was allegedly named “Road to Varsity” and provided answers to mathematics and physical science questions.
Following disciplinary hearings in 2023, the Department of Basic Education withheld the results of 896 learners who were found to have been involved in examination irregularities. The affected learners were permitted to rewrite the examinations after their sanctions lapsed. According to the judgment, 467 learners have since rewritten the exams between 2023 and June 2025, with others registered to rewrite later this year.
The 510 learners who brought the review application argued that the department had conducted the disciplinary process unfairly, with allegations including minors appearing without legal guardians, group hearings, and unrecorded proceedings. In August 2024, Acting Judge J.H. Roelofse ruled in their favour, finding that while cheating had occurred, the department had failed to follow proper procedures.
However, the appeal court found a fatal flaw in the learners’ case: they had not exhausted the internal appeal mechanisms provided for in the examination regulations before approaching the courts. The regulations stipulate that learners dissatisfied with disciplinary hearing outcomes may appeal first to the Head of Department and then to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC).
The court noted that only 101 of the 510 learners had taken any steps in the internal process. Of these, 62 filed what was described as an appeal, while 39 sent a letter requesting information. None pursued the internal appeal process to completion. The learners launched their court application approximately three weeks after initially contacting the department, without waiting for responses or exhausting the available remedies.
“The high-water mark for the learners is that, because the appellants did not respond, they decided to approach the Court,” the judgment stated. The court emphasised that PAJA requires litigants to exhaust internal remedies before seeking judicial review, except in exceptional circumstances.
The learners had not applied for exemption from this requirement, nor had they demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would warrant bypassing the internal appeal process. The court found it could not retrospectively grant such an exemption on appeal when no application had been made to the lower court.
In its ruling, the court acknowledged the significance of maintaining the integrity of matric examinations while ensuring fair treatment for all learners. “To maintain the integrity of the matriculation examination and its results, all necessary steps must be taken carefully to identify and eliminate any irregularities in its administration,” the judgment read.
The court also addressed several procedural issues raised during the appeal, including an attempt by the learners to introduce new evidence about a teacher’s acquittal. The court ruled that such evidence could not be admitted without a proper application under Section 19(b) of the Superior Courts Act.
The appeal court made no order as to costs, acknowledging that the respondents were young people starting their lives and that a cost order might burden them unnecessarily. The department had not sought costs in its notice of appeal.
ALSO READ: Investigation demanded after matric learners denied access to examinations
