THE Court of Appeal has delivered a massive blow against five university students who had dragged the National Manpower Development Secretariat (NMDS) to court over the termination of their bursaries. The students were arguing that the government had agreed to sponsor them for as long as it took to complete their studies under the rules of their universities.
This content is for subscribers only. To subscribe, Click Here. Or Sign In
On the other hand, the government was insisting that its obligation to the students was only limited to them completing their studies within a minimum one year as stipulated in their contracts.
The five – Lemohang Mateyisi, Napo Molahlehi, Nthabiseng Lekaota, Montšeng Ramafikeng and Masupha Motseki – were pursuing post-graduate studies at universities in South Africa.
But sometime last year, the NMDS terminated their sponsorship arguing that the bursaries were only for a year.
The students took the matter to the High Court seeking an urgent interdict restraining the NMDS from proceeding with the termination.
They also wanted an order compelling the NMDS to continue paying the students’ tuition fees to the universities where they were enrolled.
In his judgment, Justice Molefi Makara said the “first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants . . . had exhibited contracts as proof of the relationship between each one of them and the NMDS” adding that the Ministry of Development Planning and the NMDS had “breached the terms of the contract on the number of years agreed upon for the sponsorship”.
The government and the NMDS did not agree with the judgment and appealed.
At the centre of the dispute in the Court of Appeal were two versions – one by the students and the other by the government and the NMDS.
The students maintained that the government had agreed to sponsor them for as long as it took to complete their studies under the rules of their universities.
They presented to the court contract documents that had figures of the years of their intended study that were handwritten.
The government however disputed the students’ arguments particularly the handwritten years on the contracts.
It said the inscriptions were done without the NMDS’s knowledge or agreement and were therefore invalid.
“As I understand NMDS’s case in these proceedings, its policy – expressed in the individual bursary loan agreements – is to finance a student only for the minimum period of study stipulated in the university prospectus and or the letter of admission,” Justice Petrus Damaseb, who was sitting in a coram of three judges, said in his judgment.
“It assumes no responsibility should the student for one or other personal reason fail to complete the course of study within the shortest (ie the minimum) period stipulated for the completion of the study programme.”
“NMDS’s version is supported by the university prospectuses and the individual bursary loan agreements as I have set out in the summary of the answering affidavit of the respondents. The only exception is in the case of Motseki where the minimum period is ‘not less than one year,” he said.
“The only support for the other applicants’ versions that the NMDS undertook to sponsor them for the maximum period for the completion of their courses are the hand-written insertions on the individual contracts.
“Tellingly, the handwritten insertions are inconsistent with the relevant prospectuses and the individual bursary loan agreements. To that extent, the applicants, except Motseki, failed to establish that they were sponsored by the NMDS for more than the minimum periods of study stipulated by their respective universities.”
Justice Phillip Musonda and Justice Moses Chinhengo agreed.
“The appeal must therefore be allowed in respect of first to fourth respondents but it must fail in respect of the fifth.”
Staff Reporter
