EDL3703
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 26 March 2025
3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION BY SOUTH
AFRICAN COURTS
Introduction
Section 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that
everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their
choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. It
further obliges the state to consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including
single-medium institutions, in order to give effect to this right, taking into account factors
such as equity, practicability, and the need to redress the results of past racially
discriminatory laws and practices. Over the years, courts have grappled with the proper
interpretation and application of this section in a diverse set of disputes involving language
policies in public schools. This essay explores how courts have approached Section 29(2)
by focusing on three important cases:
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION BY SOUTH
AFRICAN COURTS
Introduction
Section 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that
everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of
their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably
practicable. It further obliges the state to consider all reasonable educational
alternatives, including single-medium institutions, in order to give effect to this right,
taking into account factors such as equity, practicability, and the need to redress the
results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices. Over the years, courts have
grappled with the proper interpretation and application of this section in a diverse set
of disputes involving language policies in public schools. This essay explores how
courts have approached Section 29(2) by focusing on three important cases:
1. Minister of Education (Western Cape) and Others v Governing Body of Mikro
Primary School (SCA)
2. Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v
Hoërskool Ermelo and Another (CC)
3. Laerskool Middelburg and Another v Departementshoof: Mpumalanga
Department van Onderwys and Others (HC and subsequent appellate
considerations)
Through these cases, one can discern how the judiciary has balanced the
constitutional imperative to ensure meaningful access to education in a preferred
official language against the realities of limited resources, historical inequities, and
the managerial prerogatives of education authorities.
1. Constitutional Framework of Section 29(2)
Before examining the cases, it is useful to outline the constitutional context in which
they arise. Section 29(1) entrenches the right to basic education, while Section 29(2)
qualifies the right to be taught in the language of one’s choice. The provision
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
underscores the complexity of balancing various rights and interests: on one hand,
preserving and promoting multilingualism and mother-tongue education, and on the
other hand, ensuring equitable access to schools for all learners, regardless of
language.
The key phrases in Section 29(2)—“where that education is reasonably practicable”
and “taking into account … equity … practicability and … the need to redress the
results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices”—signal that the right to
instruction in one’s chosen official language is not absolute. The state must assess
each context carefully, considering whether resources, capacity, and the broader
constitutional objective of social transformation permit the provision of single-medium
or parallel-medium education.
2. Minister of Education (Western Cape) and Others v Governing Body of Mikro
Primary School
2.1 Background and Facts
In the Mikro Primary School case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) addressed a
dispute between the provincial Department of Education and a governing body that
had adopted an Afrikaans-only language policy. The Department instructed the
school to admit a group of English-speaking learners and to offer parallel-medium
instruction (Afrikaans and English). Mikro Primary refused, arguing that Section 6(2)
of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 empowers the school governing body to
determine the language policy, subject only to the Constitution, the Schools Act, and
any applicable provincial law.
2.2 Court’s Reasoning.
The SCA acknowledged that Section 29(2) creates a right to receive education in the
official language of one’s choice but found that this right must be balanced with
practical realities. Crucially, the court held that a governing body’s chosen language
policy could not be overridden arbitrarily by the Department unless specific
conditions set out in the Schools Act—particularly Sections 22 and 25—were met.
These provisions allow the Head of Department to withdraw a governing body’s
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 26 March 2025
3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION BY SOUTH
AFRICAN COURTS
Introduction
Section 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that
everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their
choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. It
further obliges the state to consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including
single-medium institutions, in order to give effect to this right, taking into account factors
such as equity, practicability, and the need to redress the results of past racially
discriminatory laws and practices. Over the years, courts have grappled with the proper
interpretation and application of this section in a diverse set of disputes involving language
policies in public schools. This essay explores how courts have approached Section 29(2)
by focusing on three important cases:
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION BY SOUTH
AFRICAN COURTS
Introduction
Section 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that
everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of
their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably
practicable. It further obliges the state to consider all reasonable educational
alternatives, including single-medium institutions, in order to give effect to this right,
taking into account factors such as equity, practicability, and the need to redress the
results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices. Over the years, courts have
grappled with the proper interpretation and application of this section in a diverse set
of disputes involving language policies in public schools. This essay explores how
courts have approached Section 29(2) by focusing on three important cases:
1. Minister of Education (Western Cape) and Others v Governing Body of Mikro
Primary School (SCA)
2. Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v
Hoërskool Ermelo and Another (CC)
3. Laerskool Middelburg and Another v Departementshoof: Mpumalanga
Department van Onderwys and Others (HC and subsequent appellate
considerations)
Through these cases, one can discern how the judiciary has balanced the
constitutional imperative to ensure meaningful access to education in a preferred
official language against the realities of limited resources, historical inequities, and
the managerial prerogatives of education authorities.
1. Constitutional Framework of Section 29(2)
Before examining the cases, it is useful to outline the constitutional context in which
they arise. Section 29(1) entrenches the right to basic education, while Section 29(2)
qualifies the right to be taught in the language of one’s choice. The provision
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
underscores the complexity of balancing various rights and interests: on one hand,
preserving and promoting multilingualism and mother-tongue education, and on the
other hand, ensuring equitable access to schools for all learners, regardless of
language.
The key phrases in Section 29(2)—“where that education is reasonably practicable”
and “taking into account … equity … practicability and … the need to redress the
results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices”—signal that the right to
instruction in one’s chosen official language is not absolute. The state must assess
each context carefully, considering whether resources, capacity, and the broader
constitutional objective of social transformation permit the provision of single-medium
or parallel-medium education.
2. Minister of Education (Western Cape) and Others v Governing Body of Mikro
Primary School
2.1 Background and Facts
In the Mikro Primary School case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) addressed a
dispute between the provincial Department of Education and a governing body that
had adopted an Afrikaans-only language policy. The Department instructed the
school to admit a group of English-speaking learners and to offer parallel-medium
instruction (Afrikaans and English). Mikro Primary refused, arguing that Section 6(2)
of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 empowers the school governing body to
determine the language policy, subject only to the Constitution, the Schools Act, and
any applicable provincial law.
2.2 Court’s Reasoning.
The SCA acknowledged that Section 29(2) creates a right to receive education in the
official language of one’s choice but found that this right must be balanced with
practical realities. Crucially, the court held that a governing body’s chosen language
policy could not be overridden arbitrarily by the Department unless specific
conditions set out in the Schools Act—particularly Sections 22 and 25—were met.
These provisions allow the Head of Department to withdraw a governing body’s
