The Mpumalanga High Court (Mbombela) has set aside an order compelling the Department of Basic Education to release withheld matric results to learners who were accused of being part of a massive cheating scandal during the 2022 exams.

Their exam results were withheld and declared null and void by the Mpumalanga Department of Education. This was after the department determined at the marking phase of the learners’ scripts and pursuant to an investigation that the learners had cheated. 

IoL reports that the learners turned to court last year, where the department was ordered to release their results. But the department now successfully appealed that ruling before three judges.

Judge Takalani Ratshibvumo found that the vast majority of the learners implicated did not exhaust the internal appeal processes, as required by law.

In the opening to his judgment, he commented that it is often said that education is what remains after one has forgotten what they learned at school.

‘In SA, the bridge from those learning years is marked by the National Senior Certificate examinations. This is the ultimate test that assesses learners' level of education after 12 years of learning’.

But he pointed out that the vetting process ensures that the examinations were qualitative and untainted.

The role played by the department in safeguarding this process cannot be overstated, given the significant contribution learners make to the nation after completing National Senior Certificate examinations, the judge said.

About 510 learners last year turned to the High Court to overturn the decision by the department to withhold their initial results.

They said that they could not study further until they had obtained their marks. 

IoL notes that one of their grounds for review was that there were a number of irregularities, which should render the department’s decision not to release their results void.

The court earlier noted that the department did not rebut some of the accusations by the learners, which included that the disciplinary hearings were done in group form, which violated the learners’ right to a fair hearing. But on appeal, the court was told that 510 learners had filed the earlier review application.

It appears that only 101 of those learners took steps in internal processes. 

About 39 learners advanced a letter seeking information, and 62 learners filed what was phrased as an appeal.

‘None of the learners pursued the internal appeal processes to completion; therefore, the internal appeal process was not exhausted. That process could have been undertaken by advancing an appeal as articulated in the regulations,’ Ratshibvumo said in ruling in favour of the department.

Full IoL report

Judgment