timeframe and that they need only show that they were making progress and that
they had a plan. They also argued that there was insufficient budget to meet all of
the furniture needs immediately.
On February 20, 2014, the High Court declared that it was not in dispute that
schools were affected by a failure to provide furniture and that such fact was a
serious impediment for children attempting to access the right to basic education
in the province. Citing the decision of Juma Musjid v. Essay NO (2011), the Court
highlighted that the right to basic education provided for in section 29 (1) (a) of
the Constitution is an unqualified right which is immediately realizable and is not
subject to the limitation of progressive realization. The right to basic education is
also an empowerment right. In order to comply with its obligation to respect the
right to basic education, the government is required to take all reasonable
measures to realize the right with immediate effect. The High Court ordered
that the government ensures that on or before 31 May 2014 [] all schools
identified in [an] audit as having furniture shortages shall receive adequate age and
grade appropriate furniture which shall enable each child at the identified schools
to have his or her own reading and writing space(Excerpts from the High Court
decision).
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
The Legal Resource Centre is monitoring the implementation of the decision. The
comprehensive audit was completed by 28 February, but the omission of numerous
schools requiring furniture is apparent. Another delay is likely due to a tender
dispute between the state and furniture manufacturers over irregular tender
procedures in the award of R90 million worth of furniture orders. The Legal
Resources Centre has intervened on behalf of the Centre for Child Law in this
matter in an attempt to prevent the granting of an interdict which would delay the
delivery of furniture, but supporting a declaration that the tender was unlawful.
Judgment has not been handed down in that dispute (LRC, April 2014).
Significance of the Case:
First, the High Court reaffirmed the understanding that the right to basic education
is immediately realizable, in particular with regard to schools infrastructure.
Second, the High Court issued orders that will have a broad impact, benefiting
more than 600,000 learners who are currently without adequate (or any) furniture.