The applicant applied for admission to the LLB degree programme at the second respondent university through the Mature Entry system. He received an offer letter dated 25 March 2022, was advised by telephone that a place had been reserved for him, and paid the required fees. On 13 April 2022, he received a letter by email revoking his admission to the LLB programme. The respondents contended that the applicant was irregularly given the offer of admission, possibly through corruption involving staff members. The applicant's application was never received or considered by the Faculty of Law according to the laid down procedures. The applicant did not write or pass the mandatory test required for all Mature Entry students as stipulated in clause 7:3 of the applicable regulations. The applicant's name did not appear on the list of applicants considered for interviews (which contained 74 names) nor on the list of 50 successful applicants admitted to the LLB programme.
The urgent chamber application was dismissed with costs.
An applicant for an interim interdict must establish either a clear right or a prima facie right that is open to some doubt. Where admission to a university programme is granted in violation of mandatory procedural requirements set out in the applicable regulations, no enforceable right is created, regardless of whether an offer letter was issued. Compliance with mandatory admission procedures, such as writing and passing required tests, is essential to establish a valid right to admission. In the absence of a demonstrated right, an interim interdict cannot be granted as the foundational requirement is not satisfied. The balance of convenience in educational admission matters favours strict adherence to prescribed procedures to maintain the integrity of the education system.
The court made important observations about systemic issues in the university's admission process that it intended to bring to the attention of the Council for Legal Education: (1) the existence of loopholes in the admission system that could be manipulated; (2) concerns about the large number of admitted students (16 out of 50, representing 32%) who did not have a grade B or better in English Language at Ordinary Level, which is a mandatory requirement for normal and special entry students, raising questions about whether these were all mature entry students when regulations limit mature entry to not more than five applicants per intake; (3) the regulations for Mature Entry admission do not define "suitable or relevant post-school experience" and require no basic or minimum qualification, exposing the system to abuse. The court emphasized that the integrity of legal qualifications and the education system must be jealously guarded.
This case reinforces the principle that universities must strictly adhere to their admission regulations and procedures, and that failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements will vitiate any purported admission. It emphasizes the importance of protecting the integrity of the education system and legal qualifications. The case also demonstrates the requirements for establishing a prima facie right in applications for interim interdicts, particularly in the context of educational admissions. The judgment highlights concerns about systemic vulnerabilities in university admission processes that may be susceptible to manipulation or corruption.