Fighting To Learn

Learner-teacher support materials

Access to learning materials to assist teaching is central to the provision of a quality education. Learner-teacher support material (LTSM) provides essential teaching tools and materials required by each school. Schools are provided with a budget from the Department of Education with which to purchase these materials.

In 2012 the Eastern Cape Department of Education (ECDOE) informed schools that they were centralising the procurement of all LTSM. Use of this system was mandatory. The Department now handles the procurement and distribution of the text books and materials. The consequence of this decision was that the schools did not receive the full LTSM budget they were entitled to. Schools have received textbooks valued at just a portion of their budgets, but did not receive the difference.

The schools require the full LTSM budget in order to purchase other LTSM products such as computer equipment, blackboards and support literature as well as to cater for any additional learners who may join the school after the text books have been delivered. Despite repeated requests to the ECDOE, the schools involved were not provided with the rest of their budget, leaving them short of LTSM materials, and, in turn, prejudicing the learners. Children would  have to share textbooks, or schools would have to use funds to photocopy text books so that there were enough copies for all the children to use. There were absolutely no funds for items like computer equipment or maintenance, maps, posters and calculators.

Two schools, Maganise Junior Secondary School and Nyangilizwe Senior Secondary School approached the LRC regarding the problems they faced with their LTSM budget. The LRC currently represents these schools in proceedings, which were issued in May 2014. The application is twofold: firstly, that the ECDOE reimburse these two schools, as well as other schools in the Eastern Cape who come forward to claim monies owed to them, being the di erence in the budget between the amount allocated and the value of the textbooks actually received for 2013 and 2014; and secondly, to enable the schools themselves to procure LTSM so that they can obtain materials they require, and not be limited to textbooks obtained by the ECDOE.

The department failed to le any papers in the matter. The LRC sought default judgment against the department which resulted in a settlement being o ered to reimburse the schools. The settlement is likely to be made an order of court in the first quarter of 2015.

(i) Notice of Motion

In The High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape Division, Grahamstown
Case No.

In the matter between:

The Governing Body of Maganise Junior Secondary School

First Applicant

The Governing Body of Nyangilizwe Senior Secondary School

Second Applicant

and

The Minister of Basic Education

First Respondent

The Director-General, Department of Basic Education

Second Respondent

The Member of the Executive Council, Department of Basic Education: Eastern Cape Province

Third Respondent

The Superintendent General of the Department of Basic Education: Eastern Cape Province

Fourth Respondent

and

Government of the Republic of South Africa

First Respondent

MEC for Education: Eastern Cape

Second Respondent

Government of the Eastern Cape Province

Third Respondent

Superintendent General of the Eastern Cape Department of Education

Fourth Respondent

Notice Of Motion

KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the applicants intend to make application at the hearing of this matter for an order in the following terms:

1. It is declared that the respondents’ failure and/ or refusal to pay the full amounts owed to the schools in terms of its 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 school budgets under the line item “Learner- Teacher Support Materials” (LTSM) is unlawful;

2. The respondents are directed to pay the outstanding LTSM monies owed to the applicant schools in terms of their 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 school budgets, in the amounts of:

2.1 R101 200.33 to the first applicant; and

2.2 R241 533.59 to the second applicant within thirty (30) days of this order; alternatively, in the event that the specific amounts payable are disputed, referring the determination of this issue to oral evidence.

3. It is declared that the amounts referred to in paragraph 2 constitute “debts” in terms of the State Liability Act 20 of 1957. If the respondents fail to make the payments in terms of prayer 2 above within thirty (30) days of the order, the applicants may secure satisfaction of the amounts due in accordance with the procedure set out in section 3(3) of the State Liability Act.

4. The fourth respondent is directed personally to ensure that all necessary steps to affect the payments timeously are taken;

5. The respondents are directed to pay all public schools in the Eastern Cape the balance of their declared LTSM budgets owed to them in terms of their 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 school budgets.

6. Within ten (10) days of the date of the order, the fourth respondent shall deliver notice to the applicants’ attorneys and the court designating a named o cial who shall be responsible for administering the payments required in terms of this order.

7. In order for such payments to be made to schools seeking to be reimbursed, the school must provide the following information to the o cial designated in terms of paragraph 6 above:

7.1 The name and contact details of the school;

7.2 The school’s “ nal paper budget” as determined by the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education for the relevant nancial year(s);

7.3 The CAPS Catalogue(s) (or equivalent documents) reflecting the money value of the orders placed through centralised procurement;

7.4 A declaration on affidavit by the chairperson of the school’s governing body stating that the school has not received the balance of its LTSM budget, the amount(s) demanded, and confirming that the school requires the balance of its LTSM budget in order to purchase LTSM.

8. The respondents are directed to pay the amounts claimed by individual public schools in terms of paragraph 7 of this order, or to inform the affected public schools that the amount claimed is disputed, within thirty (30) days of delivery of the information provided for in paragraph 7 of this order.

9. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount due to any individual school in terms of this order, any of the parties (including any intervening party) may approach this court on reasonable notice and on duly supplemented papers to seek appropriate relief arising from this order. If necessary, the relevant party may request that the relevant issue be referred to oral evidence.

10. The respondents shall pay the costs of this application severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.

TAKE NOTICE that the affidavits of NAMBITHA NKONYENI and ZOLILE BEEF, and the annexures accompanying those affidavits, will be used in support of the application.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the applicants have appointed the Legal Resources Centre, Grahamstown as their attorneys of record and will accept service of all documents in these proceedings at the address set out below.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that should the respondents, or any of them, intend to oppose this application, they are required to:

(i) deliver notice of their intention to oppose within 10 days of the date of service of this application; and

(ii) deliver their answering affidavits, if any, within 15 days of the date of service of the notice of opposition referred to in paragraph (i).

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the applicants shall deliver a replying affidavit, if any, within 10 days of delivery of the respondents’ answering affidavit(s), if any.

Dated at Grahamstown This Day of May 2014

Legal Resources Centre

Applicants’ Attorneys
116 High Street
Grahamstown

(Ref: Cameron McConnachie)

To:

The Registrar
High Court
Grahamstown

And To:

First to Fourth Respondents
c/o State Attorney,
29 Western Road, Central
Port Elizabeth.

(ii) Extracts from founding affidavit

The annexes referred to in the court proceedings are too lengthy to include here. Please contact the LRC for the full court document.

In the Hight Court of South Africa Eastern Cape High Division: Grahamstown
Case No.

In the matter between:

The Governing Body of Maganise Junior Secondary School

First Applicant

The Governing Body of Nyangilizwe Senior Secondary School

Second Applicant

and

The Minister of Basic Education

First Respondent

The Director-General, Department of Basic Education

Second Respondent

The Member of the Executive Council, Department of Basic Education Eastern Cape Province

Third Respondent

The Superintendent General of the Department of Basic Education Eastern Cape Province

Fourth Respondent

Founding Affidavit

I, the undersigned,

Nambitha Nkonyeni


state under oath the following:

1. I am the chairperson of the School Governing Body for Maganise Junior Secondary School (“Maganise JSS”).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

12. This application is concerned with the need of the applicant schools, and other public schools in the Eastern Cape that are similarly situated, to be provided with LTSM in order to provide an adequate education to their learners. LTSM consists of textbooks and numerous other items which assist teachers and learners.

13. During 2012 and 2013 the Eastern Cape Department of Education (ECDOE) determined the operating budgets for each school in the province for the following year, and informed the schools thereof in writing. The budgets are calculated using the “National table of targets for the school allocation (2011–2013)” as published in Government Gazette No. 33723 dated 5 November 2010. The notice is attached as Annexure NN2.

14. The applicant schools’ operating budgets for the 2013 and 2014 school years are attached as Annexures NN3 – NN6. As can be seen from the budgets, the schools were advised that they would receive certain amounts for the procurement of LTSM. Maganise JSS was advised through their paper budget for 2012/13 that they would receive R156,735.00 and Nyangalizwe SSS would receive R267,178.50.

15. Schools were subsequently informed that the ECDOE was enforcing a system of centralised procurement whereby schools would order textbooks using a catalogue, and the department would handle the procurement and distribution of textbooks. Despite the applicant schools’ opposition to having their power to procure LTSM revoked, centralised procurement became mandatory.

16. The new system is unlawful and prejudicial to public schools in the Eastern Cape for two main reasons:

16.1 First, it is limited to the procurement of textbooks, to the exclusion of all the other items of LTSM that schools require in order to provide an adequate education to learners; and

16.2 Secondly, the ECDOE has effectively appropriated the LTSM budgets of public schools and is spending only a reduced portion of those budgets on textbooks. This has the effect of unlawfully reducing the determined LTSM budgets of public schools such as the applicant schools.

17. The two problems are inter-related. The ECDOE states that it has been able to effect savings through centralised procurement as it receives discounts for bulk buying and distribution. The savings, however, are not passed on to the schools. More importantly, schools do not receive the amount of money for LTSM which has been prescribed by law. Instead they receive only a certain quantity of textbooks. If the textbooks are valued at less than a school’s LTSM budget, the school does not receive the di erence. This severely prejudices no fee schools as they have no other source of income to procure any of the other items which make up LTSM in addition to textbooks. It also undermines the objectives of the pro-poor-school funding model that has been designed to address past and present inequalities in the provision of education.

fightingtolearn25

18. I submit that the ECDOE’s insistence on centralising LTSM procurement and limiting their LTSM procurement to textbooks, and refusal to give schools their entire LTSM budget, undermines the applicant schools’ ability to provide quality education. It also constitutes a breach of the rights of learners at those schools to equality and to basic education. This application is not intended to challenge the decision to centralise the procurement of textbooks, but only to challenge the unlawful consequences of the implementation of this decision. While the respondents may have the power to determine, as a matter of policy, that the procurement of LTSM should be conducted centrally, they do not have the power to reduce declared LTSM budget allocations in the process of centralising procurement.

19. The two central purposes of this application are to obtain:

19.1 An order directing the department to reimburse the applicant schools and all schools in the Eastern Cape Province, the di erence between the budgets amounts allocated to the schools for LTSM for the 2013 and 2014 years and the value of the textbooks actually ordered and delivered by the Department;

19.2 An order enabling the applicant schools and any other affected schools in the Eastern Cape to procure LTSM in future, not limited to textbooks, to the full value of their approved school allocation for LTSM in accordance with each school’s budget allocation.

Background to Application

20. Every year, government schools across the Eastern Cape province need to acquire LTSM in order to operate. LTSM includes textbooks, teacher guides and workbooks. It also includes supplementary resource materials used to assist with teaching and learning. Paragraph 96 of the Amended National Norms and Standards for School Funding 2006 (“the funding norms”) states that

“Learning support materials (LSMs), including textbooks, library books, charts, models, computer hardware and software, televisions, video recorders, video tapes, home economics equipment, science laboratory equipment, musical instruments, learner desks, chairs.”

21. This de nition of LTSM is not a closed list. Other basic items that fall within LTSM include chalkboards and chalk dusters, photocopiers and printers. Relevant pages of the funding norms are attached as Annexure NN6a.

22. It is clear that the above items are crucial for ensuring that the learners receive a quality education in all areas of the curriculum. Relevant pages from “Basic Financial Management in Schools” provided by the ECDOE are attached as Annexure NN7 which set out the materials which are classified as LTSM. This is repeated at paragraph 6.2.2 of Circular No.4 of 2008 which sets out the “Guidelines for Regulating the Provisions of Norms and Standards For School Funding Policy”. The Guidelines are attached as Annexure NN8.

23. Since 2008, section 21 schools (those schools whose SGBs qualify to carry out allocated functions in accordance with section 21 of the South African Schools Act 86 of 1996) have had full autonomy to order and pay for LTSM as is clear from paragraph 6.4.3 of the Guidelines attached as annexure NN8. The provincial government deposited the amounts prescribed in terms of a school’s allocation as determined by the ECDOE into each school’s bank account, and the school handled the procurement of all LTSM. While textbooks were a priority material, LTSM included many more items. For many schools, including the applicant schools, this system was very effective and enabled us to obtain the LTSM we required for the learners.

Procurement of LTSM In 2010 for the 2013 School Year

24. In June 2012, the SG sent a circular to all section 21 schools in the Eastern Cape which explained that the section 21 power conferred on the SGBs to obtain LTSM was to be revoked, and that all schools would have to obtain LTSM under the centralised procurement system. The circular is attached as Annexure NN9.

25. We were opposed to participating in centralised procurement and wrote numerous letters to the department indicating our opposition and setting out our concerns regarding the department’s capacity to deliver textbooks on time. We were asked to complete a catalogue to order textbooks. We wrote to the department on 19 July 2012 seeking clarity on why we were being asked to complete the central procurement catalogue when we had rejected the proposed system. This letter is attached as Annexure NN9a.

26. On 31 July 2012 we completed the department’s approved LTSM catalogue for the books that we needed for the 2013 school year. The catalogue is known as the “CAPS Catalogue (2013)” and lists all of the approved publications schools may choose from. The catalogue system is used by all schools regardless of whether they are part of the centralised procurement system or not. Proof of our submission is attached as Annexure NN9b.

27. After receiving no response, we called our district office to nd out why the form indicated that the supplier was “Central Procurement (Prov O ce)” and asked whether we could delete that and insert the name of the supplier that we intended using. The district o ce said we could not change the name, that we should send the form in unchanged, but that the money would be deposited into our school’s bank account and we would procure our own LTSM.

28. As indicated on the form, our LTSM budget allocation for the 2013 school year was R156,735.00, but the value of the books we ordered was only R83,828.39 (a di erence of R72,906.61). We then waited for our LTSM budget to be deposited into our bank account so that we could purchase the books we had identified in the catalogue, and purchase all of the other LTSM items needed by the school that were not textbooks and therefore not in the catalogue. We intended to use the remainder of the school’s approved LTSM budget to procure the other necessary items of LTSM.

29. I am aware that many schools opposed the plan to centralise the procurement of LTSM. Our attorneys in the present application wrote to the first and third respondents on 2 August 2012 on behalf of dozens of schools opposed to the revocation of their LTSM procurement powers, and asked that the SG not impose the proposed new system. A copy of this letter is attached as Annexure NN10.

30. In a written response dated 10 August 2012, the Minister agreed that the schools’ section 21 powers to procure LTSM could not be revoked in the manner the SG had done so, and directed that centralised procurement be optional for those section 21 schools. A copy of the Minister’s letter is attached as Annexure NN11.

31. The state attorney then wrote to our attorneys of record stating that schools could elect whether or not to participate in centralised procurement and attached circular number 16 of 2012 dated 27 August 2012 which set out the procedure to be followed if schools decided to procure LTSM for themselves. The letter and circular is attached as Annexure NN12.

32. Maganise JSS elected to opt out of centralised procurement and informed the department of our decision in writing. A copy of the letter dated 4 September 2012 is attached as Annexure NN13. The school wanted to retain control of the process and was worried that if the procurement and delivery of LTSM was left in the hands of the department, the delivery of materials would be delayed.

33. Despite electing to opt out of centralised procurement, our election was ignored. Numerous o cials exerted pressure on our school to participate in centralised procurement.

34. The district director at the time was Mr A.S. Nuku. Nuku strongly advised us in numerous meetings to opt into the centralised procurement process. The SG also personally advised us to participate in centralised procurement. The SG visited our school on 25 October 2012 and told us we had to participate in centralised procurement and had no option. At a meeting held at Ndamase Senior Secondary School in the afternoon of the same day, the SG informed all principals and SGB chairpersons of schools in the district that they had to participate in centralised procurement. The ECDOE appeared determined to ensure that our school opted in. We were determined, however, to exercise our option not to participate in the centralised procurement process.

35. The LTSM budget was not transferred into our school’s bank account. Unexpectedly the majority of the books we had identified in the catalogue arrived at our school in October 2012. When I enquired from the district o ce, Mrs Ngandi, the o cial handling LTSM in our district, advised us that we had no option but to accept the books and that the balance owing to us would be paid into our school’s bank account shortly.

36. Our circuit manager, Mr BB Peyana, and our district director, Mr Nuku in separate meetings said the same thing as Mrs Ngandi – that we had to accept the books and that the di erence between our budget and the value of the books ordered would be deposited into our school’s bank account. The circuit management meeting was held on 23 January 2013 with principals in our circuit attending. The district meeting was held on 26 September 2012 in Port St Johns and was convened by the District Director Mr Nuku.

37. Because there were only three months until the start of the 2013 school year, we did not think there was enough time to reject the books delivered and procure books for ourselves. In any event, we had no money to order and pay for textbooks. We therefore accepted the delivery of the textbooks and waited for the balance of our LTSM budget to be deposited into our school’s bank account.

38. Despite making repeated verbal and written requests to the district and circuit o ces at numerous meetings, and being told to speak to an o cial in the East London o ce, the payment was never made and we were unable to purchase the numerous other LTSM materials desperately needed by the school. As a no-fee school without any other source of income, this was a massive setback. Losing almost half (46,5 percent) of our LTSM budget for the 2013 school year has severely constrained the resources we can provide to our teachers and learners and consequently had a negative impact on the quality of education provided to learners.

39. The department’s failure to give us our full LTSM budget has meant that we have been unable to pay for:

39.1 natural science and technology textbooks for grades 4, 5, and 6;

39.2 reference materials (maps, atlases, dictionaries);

39.3 five much needed chalkboards for the grade 1, 2 and 3 classes;

39.4 a photocopier and printer we desperately need;

39.5 the servicing and maintenance of the school’s 20 computers for learners and five for the teachers – the children’s computers are now completely unusable, and two of the teacher computers are not working;

39.6 top-up material needed to assist learners with di culties in spelling and general remedial work.

40. The school cannot operate effectively without the above items.

Procurement of LTSM in 2013 for the 2014 School Year

41. The sequence of events in 2013 when we ordered LTSM for the 2014 school year was similar to those of 2012. We submitted a letter, which is attached as Annexure NN14 and dated 23 April 2013, confirming that the SGB wished
to procure LTSM for 2014 on its own. We were informed, however, that centralised procurement was now compulsory. We again completed the catalogue – this time entitled “CAPS Requisitions/ Orders 2014”. This is attached as Annexure NN15. As indicated on the order form, our budget was R179,597.70, but the value of our order was only R151,303.98. This amounts to a difference of R28,293.72. This is 16 percent of our school’s LTSM budget. The school cannot purchase numerous important LTSM items such as those listed above without those funds.

42. We again repeatedly requested that the difference in the amount ordered and our school’s LTSM budget be paid to the school.

43. To date, these monies have not been paid to the school and we have been unable to purchase the required items. The refusal of the respondents to pay the applicant schools the amount owed to them for LTSM, an amount which has been determined by statute, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

44. I submit that the school is owed an amount of R72,906.61 for the 2013 school year, and R28,293.72 for the 2014 school year. I submit that the first applicant, acting in the best interests of its learners, has a claim against the ECDOE in the amount of R101,200.33.

Legal Basis for Relief Sought

45. The applicants submit that there is a statutory and constitutional obligation on the respondents to provide adequate LTSM to schools in order
for them to function properly. The respondents’ decision to reduce the funding available for LTSM and at the same time to limit it to textbooks only, is a retrogressive and unlawful measure. These are matters for legal argument and will therefore not be addressed in detail in this affidavit.

46. I emphasise, however, that these legal and constitutional obligations ow from a range of sources, including:

46.1 The right to a basic education contained in section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution;

46.2 Further constitutional provisions, including:

46.2.1 The duty of the state to ensure accountability, responsiveness, and openness (section 1);

46.2.2 The duty of the state to respect, protect, promote and ful l the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (section 7(2));

46.2.3 The right to equality (section 9);

46.2.4 The basic values and principles governing the public administration (section 195); and

46.2.5 The duty on the state to perform its obligations diligently and without delay (section 237).

46.3 The Schools Act, including sections 20(1) (a), 20(1)(e), and 34 thereof;

46.4 The Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999;

46.5 The Eastern Cape Schools Education Act 1 of 1999, including section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 5(d) thereof.

47. Again without seeking to anticipate or limit the detailed legal argument that will be advanced at the hearing of this matter, I emphasise that the right to a basic education necessarily implies the right to a basic education that is adequate. The failure to fund schools on a sufficient basis to purchase LTSM while also preventing procurement of any LTSM other than textbooks results in inadequate education and disproportionately affects children from poor, predominately black schools.

48. In addition, I am advised that the schools have a reasonable expectation to be paid (or permitted to spend) the amounts allocated to them for LTSM in the school allocation and are entitled to rely on the “promise” embodied in the budget allocation.

49. The funding norms provide that:

“In terms of our Constitution and the government’s budgeting procedure, the Ministry of Education does not decide on the amounts to be allocated annually for Provincial Education Departments. This is the responsibility of provincial governments and legislatures, which must make appropriations to their education departments from the total revenue resources available to their provinces. Thus, each province determines its own level of spending on education, in relation to its overall assessment of needs and resources.” (para 33)

50. Once the Eastern Cape legislature has determined the amount to be spent on education, the ECDOE uses a formula to determine the overall amount of funding for each school (the “school allocation”) to nance “non-personnel non capital expenditure items” (para 87 of the funding norms).

51. That formula is set out at paragraph 6.1 of the Guidelines attached above as annexure NN8. These stipulate that 45 percent of a school’s budget is to be spent on LTSM. Immediately thereafter the Guidelines emphasise that “Where the SGB considers that there is a need to deviate from the prescribed manner in which funds are to be utilised, written approval to do so must be obtained from the District Director.”

52. It is clear from the department’s own policy on expenditure of the budget that the formula cannot be arbitrarily altered. The current application illustrates how the department’s failure to fund LTSM fully has unilaterally, and substantially, reduced the portion of a school’s budget that can be spent on LTSM.

53. The province determines the school allocation using the number of learners at a school and a pro-poor funding poverty index that is set by the national department and known as the “national table of targets for the school allocation (or the ‘targets table’)”. This sets out the per-learner monetary targets for the school allocation. The department’s decision to withhold LTSM funding undermines the pro poor funding poverty index’s aims.

54. The Minister has expressly recognised the importance of the school allocation to empower schools and enable them to deliver a quality education:

“Government sees the school allocation as a key means of empowering school communities, and realising democracy at the level of the school. It is important for the local level to participate in decision-making relating to what non-personnel inputs to purchase for particular schools. For this reason, Government supports the gradual transfer to the school level of decision-making powers relating to the school allocation. This must obviously occur in a controlled manner, in accordance with the important sections 19 to 22 of the SASA, and in such a way that public funds are not squandered, and are spent in a manner that fully supports the national curriculum.” (para 90 of the funding norms)

55. In addition, the funding norms provide for SGBs to exercise control – subject to the restrictions in the norms – of the school allocation made to them in the provincial budget. The norms provide that “nothing in this policy prevents PEDS or SGBs from devoting funds derived from the school allocation towards needs described in paragraph 97, if this is regarded as being in the interests of education in the school, and if this occurs in accordance with the general policy governing the school allocation.” (para 98 of the funding norms) The needs described in para 97 of the funding norms, in respect of which para 98 recognises the need for some exibility, include “shortages of LSMs”, among other items.

56. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the conduct of the ECDOE is unlawful in two principal respects:

56.1 First, it is limited to textbooks, to the exclusion of all the other items of LTSM that schools require in order to provide an adequate education to learners; and

56.2 Secondly, the ECDOE has effectively appropriated the LTSM budgets of public schools and is spending only a reduced portion of those budgets on textbooks. This has the effect of unlawfully reducing the determined LTSM budgets of public schools such as the applicant schools.

Relief Sought

57. As we have already foreshadowed, the applicants seek an order:

57.1 declaring that public schools in the Eastern Cape have the right to obtain LTSM as de ned in the funding norms, including items of LTSM other than textbooks that are required to provide an adequate education to learners in accordance with the full budgetary allocation of each school;

57.2 declaring that the decision to withhold the balance of the budget for LTSM of the applicant schools be declared unconstitutional and invalid;

57.3 directing the ECDOE to pay the balance of the declared LTSM of the applicant schools budgets for the 2013 and 2014 school years to the applicant schools within 30 days of the date of the order to enable them to purchase the additional LTSM materials that they require:

57.3.1 in the amounts of R101,200.33 to Maganise JSS and R251,533.59 to Nyangilizwe Senior Secondary School,

57.3.2 alternatively, only in the event that the respondents dispute the correctness of these amounts, referring the issue of the amounts payable to oral evidence;

57.4 declaring that the amounts referred to in paragraph 53.2 constitute “debts” in terms of the State Liability Act 20 of 1957
and authorising the applicants to recover the amounts in accordance with the provisions of that Act;

57.5 directing the respondents to pay the equivalent amounts to other affected public schools in the Eastern Cape and setting out the information to be provided and process to be followed in respect of such claims;

57.6 ordering the respondents to pay the costs of this application.

58. We therefore pray for an order in terms of the Notice of Motion to which this affidavit is attached.

Nambitha Nkonyeni

SIGNED and SWORN to BEFORE me at MTHATHA on this the day of MAY 2014, after the deponent has acknowledged that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, that it is the truth, that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that she regards the prescribed oath as binding upon her conscience.

Commissioner of Oaths