A B and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (38670/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 469 (25 May 2017)

A B and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (38670/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 469 (25 May 2017)

The court found that the applicants established urgency due to the risk that the children would not be placed at a suitable alternative school if the interim relief was not granted. The delay in bringing the application was justified by the applicants' efforts to resolve the dispute and seek alternative placements. The requirements for an interim interdict were met: the applicants showed a prima facie right to have the children's best interests protected, irreparable harm would result if the children were forced to leave Pridwin, the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the applicants, and no suitable alternative remedy existed. The respondents' contractual rights did not...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 469
Parties
Applicant: AB; Applicant: CB; Respondent: Pridwin Preparatory School; Respondent: Selwyn Marx; Respondent: The Board of Pridwin Preparatory School; Respondent: The Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Case Number
38670/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief (part A) With Reasons Furnished
Outcome
Interim relief granted in favour of the applicants; costs awarded against the respondents.
Judges
L Modiba
Legal Topics
Best Interests of Child, Right to Education, Interim Interdict, Procedural Fairness, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Contractual Termination
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Family and Children Best Interests of Child Right to Education Interim Interdict Procedural Fairness Promotion of Administrative Justice Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CB

Applicant

Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

Selwyn Marx

Respondent

The Board of Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

The Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief (part A) With Reasons Furnished

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the parent contract by Pridwin Preparatory School was unconstitutional, unfair, or illegal.
  2. 2 Whether the best interests of the children DB and EB required interim relief to preserve their enrolment at Pridwin.
  3. 3 Whether the urgency of the application was self-created or justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants established urgency due to the risk that the children would not be placed at a suitable alternative school if the interim relief was not granted. The delay in bringing the application was justified by the applicants' efforts to resolve the dispute and seek alternative placements. The requirements for an interim interdict were met: the applicants showed a prima facie right to have the children's best interests protected, irreparable harm would result if the children were forced to leave Pridwin, the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the applicants, and no suitable alternative remedy existed. The respondents' contractual rights did not...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted in favour of the applicants; costs awarded against the respondents.

Orders

  • DB and EB are entitled to remain as pupils at Pridwin Preparatory School pending final determination of Part B and any appeals.
  • AB and CB must continue to fulfil their obligations towards Pridwin, including timeous payment of school fees.