Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Universities Alliance South Africa (NPC), challenged the University of the Free State's mandatory vaccination policy (implemented in February 2022 and suspended in July 2022). The Court dismissed the application, ruling the policy moot due to its suspension and lack of current enforcement. The Applicant argued the policy violated human rights and sought its invalidation, but the Court found no evidence of future reimplementation or ongoing harm.
Issues
- The Applicant sought a declaration that any future compulsory vaccination policy at the University of the Free State would be unconstitutional. The Respondents contended this was hypothetical, as the lawfulness of such a policy would depend on future medical and regulatory circumstances, which a court cannot determine in advance.
- The Respondents argued the application was moot because the policy was suspended in July 2022 and no longer in force. The Court considered whether the Applicant demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future reimplementation, but found no evidence to support this, concluding the matter lacked vitality.
- The Applicant alleged the administrative process for implementing the policy violated the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The Respondents countered that compliance with PAJA was already required, and any failures could be addressed through individual remedies, making the application redundant.
- The Applicant challenged the validity and lawfulness of the University of the Free State's Mandatory Vaccination Policy, implemented in February 2022, arguing it unjustifiably violated fundamental human rights under the Bill of Rights. The policy was later suspended in July 2022, but the Applicant sought to review its enforcement and declare it invalid, asserting it was unnecessary and draconian.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application to review and set aside the University of the Free State's Mandatory Vaccination Policy, finding the matter moot. The policy was suspended in July 2022, and the court held that there is no live dispute as the policy is not currently in force. The Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of the policy being re-implemented, given the terminated national state of disaster and controlled spread of the virus. The court also ruled that declaratory relief on future policies is hypothetical and not permissible at the High Court level. The application was deemed redundant as the Applicant's primary purpose (access to records) had already been fulfilled.
Remedies
The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Principles
The court applied judicial review principles to assess the validity and lawfulness of the University of the Free State's Mandatory Vaccination Policy. Key considerations included whether the policy was ultra vires (beyond legal authority), proportionality of its implementation, and adherence to procedural fairness under Rule 53. The judgment emphasized the need for a live dispute and the limitations on declaratory relief for hypothetical future policies.
Precedent Name
- Biowatch Trust v Register, Genetic Resources
- Minister of Justice v Estate Late Stransham-Ford
- JT Publishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Safety and Security
- Minister of Tourism v Afriforum NPC
- Solidariteit Helpendehand NPC v Minister of Co-operative Governance
- Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality
- President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo
Cited Statute
- Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
- Occupational Health and Safety Act
Judge Name
- Hefer AJ
- Loubser J
Passage Text
- [88] '1. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.'
- [60] 'The definition of suspension according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "the act, stopping something happening, operation for a period of time".'
- [38] 'Mootness is not an absolute bar to the justiciability of an issue, and a court may entertain a matter even where no live dispute exists, if the interest of justice so dictate. The Constitutional Court in various matters has set out the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to hear the matter. These are: (a) whether any order which is made will have some practical effect either on the parties or on others; (b) the nature and extent of the practical effect that any possible order may have; (c) the importance of the issue; (d) the complexity of the issue; (e) the fullness or otherwise of the arguments advanced; and (f) resolving the disputes between different courts.'