Main Issue: Right to housing and whether children have an immediate claim by invoking article 28 of Constitution

Appeal against the decision of the CPD granting the respondent children and their parent’s shelter on the basis of s 28 of the Constitution. The court considered both s 28 and s 26. There had been no infringement of s 28 since the primary obligation imposed by that section fell onto the child’s immediate caregiver. S 26 requires the state to put in place a reasonable programme for the progressive provision of adequate housing for all. This programme should comprise short, medium and long term components. Appeal on the s 28 ruling allowed, but it was held that the State had failed to make provision in terms of the s 26 obligation to deal with people in crisis such as the applicants, and was ordered to devise and implement a programme to do so.

Main Issue: Right to access to health service and questions governments policy in the distribution of Nevirapine

Findings: The Constitutional Court said the question was whether the applicants had shown that the measures adopted by the government fell short of obligations under the Constitution. The Court said conducting research did not justify delaying a comprehensive programme. The policy seriously affected a significant group of HIV-positive mothers and children who did not have access to the research sites and were effectively denied access to a potentially life-saving medical intervention. The Court said provision of a single dose of nevirapine was essential as far as children were concerned. The needs of children were the most urgent and the state was obliged to ensure that children were accorded the protection contemplated by section 28 of the Bill of Rights. The Court declared the policy unconstitutional and ordered the government to remove the restrictions on nevirapine and to permit and facilitate its use where medically indicated.

Main Issue: The central question to be answered involved the application of corporal punishment as it had violated the rights of parents at independent schools who, in line with their religious convictions, had consented to its use.

Findings: Court held that while the relevant parents could no longer authorize teachers to apply corporal punishment in their name pursuant to their beliefs, they were not being deprived by law of their general right and capacity to bring up their children according to their Christian beliefs. Save for this one aspect, appellant’s schools were not prevented from maintaining their specific Christian ethos.  The decision was not found to be inconsistent with equality, right to religion, and the Court dismissed appeal.

Main Issue: Right to education and suspension without consulting Head of department, Department of Education

Findings: As a result of misconduct, 2 learners were suspended by the applicant school. The second and third respondents were parents of the expelled boys. Court found that the applicant's action were lawful, and that it is not necessary for a school's governing body to consult with the Head of department, Department of Education before implementing the interim suspension of a learned pending a decision as to whether the learner is to be expelled from the school by the head of department.

Main Issue: Right to education

Findings: Applicant was suspended from attending school by the governing body pending a decision by the head of department whether or not he should be expelled from school and he challenged this arguing that he did not have a fair hearing, and that it violated his constitutional right to basic education. Court found that there was a fair hearing and there was no partiality and also that the right to basic education applies for children up to 15 years of age and applicant was 17. Court dismissed application. Court also considered if governing body is a juristic person or not.

Main Issue: Right to equality/refusal to admit black pupils to primary school

Findings: The Court held that the only way the respondent could escape the consequences of the finding that the list produced by it did not contain any black children is if it is established that discrimination did not exist or was not unfair. The Court found that the respondent's "requirements for admission" that a proposed pupil should be white, had no cause and effect. The child and its parents were required to, inter alia, agree with the objective and mission of the school and honour the English culture and traditions, allowing such children to participate therein. There was no reason why non-whites could not subscribe to those requirements and accordingly the application was granted.

Main Issue: Right to education and language policy

Findings: Applicant, an exclusively Afrikaans-medium institution, wanted to set aside a decision to declare the school a dual medium one and admit learners who were to be taught in English. Initially court highlighted that the capacity of other schools which offered the desired medium of instruction had to be considered before the status of a single medium institution could be changed. But the Court further reasoned that the parents wanted to place their children in this school because it had an excellent reputation and on the basis of the best interest of the child principle, it decided that the best course of action was to leave the learners in the school and order it to take the children and teach them in English.