South Africa: Provincial Power Trumps A School's Governing Council

Last Updated: 22 November 2013
Article by Michal Johnson

In a long-running argument between the Governing Body of the Rivonia Primary School and the Gauteng Provincial Education Department, (CCT135/12 [2013] ZACC 34 (3 October 2013) the Constitutional Court started out, in its majority judgement, by referring to s29 which it states "guarantees everyone the right to a basic education" and observing that this constitutional guarantee is "inaccessible for large number of South Africans". Further that there are disparities in "accessing resources and quality education perpetuate socio-economic disadvantage, thereby reinforcing and entrenching historical inequity". With this introduction it is no surprise that the Constitutional Court found it to be in agreement, in part, with the Gauteng Department of Education.

Included in the proceedings were the parents of the student who had been refused admission, equal education, centre for child law and the Suid Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie (Onderwysersunie), the latter three having been admission as amici curiae.

Due to the fact that this matter first reared its head in 2011 it is necessary to recap the salient facts of the matter. In 2010 a prospective Grade 1 student was refused a placement for the school year commencing January 2011 on the basis that the school had reached its capacity, as provided for in its admission policy; she was accordingly placed on the waiting list. The mother of the learner complained to the Department and thereafter to the Gauteng MEC. Following the Department having reached an agreement with the school, the MEC referred the matter to the HOD of the Department of Education.

During January 2011, once the school term had already started and the student was attending a private school, the HOD considered the situation and overturned the refusal. The HOD gave an instruction to the school to admit the student immediately. The principal called an urgent meeting of the Governing Body, and admission was again refused. The HOD withdrew the principal's function, delegated it to another official and physically placed the student in one of the classrooms.

The matter was taken to the High Court with the school seeking declaratory and interdictory relief. The High Court found that the Department is entitled to intervene as it is the final arbiter. The Supreme Court of Appeal declared that the placement of the student in the school was unlawful.

The three issues to be determined before the Constitutional Court were whether the Gauteng HOD was vested with decision-making power, and if so, whether the Gauteng HOD was empowered to depart from the school's admission policy and, if so, whether the Gauteng HOD's exercise of the power to admit the student was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The first issue required a consideration of the statutory powers of the Governing Body as opposed to the powers of the Department. According to the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the Schools Act, there is a three-tier partnership consisting of the national government, provincial government and the parents of the learners. When considering this three-tier approach in relation to admission and capacity the first tier is the Minister of Basic Education, who should prescribe minimum uniform norms and standards for the "capacity of a school in respect of the number of learners a school can admit".

The Department, at provincial level carries an obligation in terms of the Schools Act to ensure that there are sufficient schools to give effect to the Constitutional right. Where there is insufficient capacity it must take steps to remedy to the situation. The department is also responsible for ensuring the school, through its Governing Body, complies with the prescribed norms and standards. At the third tier, the school, the Governing Body is responsible for determining the admission policy.

The Constitutional Court agreed with the SCA in that s5A(3) of the Schools Act may include a determination as to capacity but said that this doesn't give the Governing Body an extensive role. Its role must be considered in light of the qualifying provisions in s5(5) which imposes certain provincial government oversight.

The Constitutional Court found that s5(9) of the Schools Act allows the MEC to consider admission refusals and overturn an admission decision taken at school level. In considering this first issue the Constitutional Court also examined the principles which had been expounded in two other cases dealing with the status of a school's admission policy, which it had heard. The Constitutional Court said the principles were:

  • Where the Schools Act empowers a Governing Body to determine policy, the policy cannot be overridden by the government.
  • Government may intervene or depart from the policy where it is empowered by the Schools Act or other relevant legislation.
  • Government must act reasonably or procedurally fairly in intervening or departing from the policy.
  • The government functionary and the school must engage with one another in a matter which has students' best interests at heart.

Judge Mhlantla writing for the majority said that, in terms of the Schools Act, the "Department maintains ultimate control over the implementation of admission decision" and that the Gauteng HOD was "lawfully empowered to admit learners to Rivonia Primary".

In relation to the second issue, the Constitutional Court focused on the relationship between policy and legislation, the Schools decision having been made in terms of the policy. The court found that the policy does not bind the Department or limit its discretion. It noted that where good reasons occur, the choice to depart from the policy was an option always open to the Department and the School.

In determining the third issue the court agreed that the decision taken by the Department was administrative action and it was for this reason that it had a duty to act fairly. It referred to a previous judgement in which it said the requirements of procedural fairness are to be determined flexibly and must be based on the facts of the case. Upon analysis of the facts the court found that the Department was required to go beyond that which it had done in making its decision. It took note of the fact that the decision was made only once the school year had started and three months had elapsed since the principal had submitted her reasons for refusing entry to the school.

The Constitutional Court said that due to the fact that the matter was only considered by the Department four weeks into the school year it would have been fair to give the school an opportunity to address the Department on the changes, which would exist in the school if the student was to be admitted. Further, the Constitutional Court said that the school was not given the opportunity regarding statistics that had been interpreted by the Department. Later in the majority judgement these failures on the part of the Department were described as "procedural fairness flaws".

After addressing the three key issues the Constitutional Court turned its attention to the "systemic capacity issues" in the country. Here the court emphasised the need for co-operation between schools and the Department while keeping the best interests of students at heart. It addressed the balance that must be created between allowing as many children as possible into the school and the quality of education that is to be provided. As submitted by Onderwysersunie, the obligation to provide schooling to every child must take into account the factors that are to be considered in determining capacity.

The Constitutional Court was critical of the manner in which the parties had engaged with one another and of the school for failing to consider the best interests of the student. The Constitutional Court stated that "both parties could and should have done more to prevent the need for litigation".

The minority judgement written by Jafta J with Zondo J concurring, started out by referring to the case as "a little black girl whose dream was to obtain education at the school closest to her home. Standing in the way of realising that dream was an inflexible application of the school's policy". From this introduction the judgement drew attention, once again, to the relationship between the two parties and the fight that had ensued with disregard for the student's best interests.

Jafta supported the decision that the Department was allowed to instruct the school to accept the student. Disagreeing with the majority decision on the matter, he said that the only issue before the Constitutional Court was whether the SCA Order was wrong. Jafta said that the cause of action pleaded in the founding papers was that the "decision-maker's lack of power to make the decision taken" and that procedural fairness was not referred to in the papers at all.

The minority further found that apart from the claim not having been pleaded on the papers, there was no evidence established to support a finding of a lack of procedural fairness. Further, along the same line, that the argument contained references to procedural fairness is insufficient and cannot "justify a determination of an issue that was neither pleaded nor proved in evidence" on the record.

Finally, the minority was of the view that the court had not be called upon to grant declaratory relief - attention was drawn to the fact that the school only asked for the application for leave to appeal to be dismissed. Jafta, in support of the view that this conduct was unusual, referred to a previous case where the Constitutional Court had refused to grant an order where orders were not asked for, nor supported by the pleadings, nor the evidence which was led.

The minority also disagreed with the majority's criticism of the Department's attitude towards the "systemic capacity issues" and its relationship with the Governing Body saying that this was never an issue raised by the parties and the consideration of this was not a component of the issues before the court.

Interestingly for lawyers and law students Jaffa, in the minority judgement, provided an explanation of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. The minority stated that regardless of what was found, there was evidence that the Department had engaged the school on four occasions with a view to the policy being relaxed and that the school had persisted with its attitude of refusing to admit the student despite the policy having been relaxed on previous occasions.

The minority also disagreed with the formulation of the first principle as expounded in similar cases, as discussed and said that a proper reading of the paragraph referred to does not support the proposition that the Department cannot act contrary to policy or override a policy that offends the Constitution. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions