Unisa loses bid to appeal ruling ordering amended certificate after LLB graduate changes surname

The High Court has ordered Unisa to issue a new LLB certificate to a graduate whose surname was legally changed.

The University of South Africa (Unisa) has suffered another legal setback in its dispute with an LLB graduate over its refusal to issue an amended degree certificate reflecting his legally changed surname, after the High Court dismissed the university’s application for leave to appeal.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that Unisa, its chancellor and its registrar had failed to demonstrate that an appeal against the earlier judgment had prospects of success.

Judge Nkosingiphile Mazibuko granted condonation for the late filing of the appeal but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, ordering the university and its co-applicants to pay costs of the application.

The ruling is the latest development in a legal dispute brought by Trevor Mthokozi Ka-Mthokozisi, formerly known as Trevor Mthokozosi Sibanda, who approached the court after Unisa refused to issue a replacement LLB certificate bearing his new surname.

Ka-Mthokozisi studied at Unisa between 2011 and 2017 and graduated with an LLB degree in 2018.

In December 2023, he legally changed his surname through the Department of Home Affairs. His records were subsequently updated by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and Umalusi.

However, Unisa declined to issue an amended degree certificate reflecting the change. Instead, the university offered him a statement in lieu of the certificate, together with his academic transcript and record.

Dissatisfied with the university’s position, Ka-Mthokozisi took the matter to court, arguing that his legally changed identity should be reflected in his qualification documents.

In its earlier judgment, delivered on June 19, 2026, Judge Mazibuko ruled against Unisa and ordered it to issue an amended LLB certificate.

Following the change, both Umalusi and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) updated their records to reflect his new surname.

However, Unisa refused to issue Ka-Mthokozisi with an amended LLB degree certificate, relying primarily on its policy that "duplicate certificates will not be issued under any circumstances."

Instead, it offered him a statement in lieu of a certificate, together with his academic transcript and academic record, which he rejected before approaching the High Court.

The court found the university’s refusal to provide the amended certificate to be arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational.

During the first ruling, Judge Mazibuko distinguished between issuing a duplicate certificate and issuing an amended or corrected certificate following a lawful name change.

Judge Mazibuko held that Ka-Mthokozisi was not requesting a duplicate certificate because his original had been lost, stolen or destroyed. Instead, he was seeking a corrected or amended certificate to reflect his lawfully changed surname following a Home Affairs name change.

The judge explained that a duplicate certificate is fundamentally different from a corrected certificate issued after a legal name change.

The judgment noted that there was no evidence that issuing an amended certificate would compromise the integrity of the university's academic records or that Unisa lacked adequate administrative systems to verify identities or maintain secure records.

The court also found that the university already had mechanisms in place to issue replacement documentation where necessary.

The judgment provided relief to Ka-Mthokozisi, who sought official qualification documentation consistent with his legally recognised surname.

Unisa subsequently pursued legal steps to challenge the ruling, with the university, its chancellor and its registrar bringing an application for leave to appeal.

In the second judgment, Judge Mazibuko considered the parties’ court papers and heard oral arguments from their legal representatives.

The court accepted that the applicants had established grounds for condonation for the late filing of their appeal. However, it found that the requirements for granting leave to appeal had not been met.

Advocate S Tleane represented Unisa, the chancellor and the registrar while Trevor Mthokozi Ka-Mthokozisi was represented by S Sibanda of TK Baloyi Attorneys.

The latest order marks a further setback for Unisa in its attempt to overturn the earlier ruling in favour of the graduate.