A B and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (1134/2017) [2018] ZASCA 150; [2019] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2019 (1) SA 327 (SCA); 2019 (8) BCLR 1006 (SCA) (1 November 2018)

A B and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (1134/2017) [2018] ZASCA 150; [2019] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2019 (1) SA 327 (SCA); 2019 (8) BCLR 1006 (SCA) (1 November 2018)

The majority held that the parent contracts were freely and voluntarily entered into, with clear terms permitting termination on notice for any reason. The Constitution does not impose a general requirement for a hearing before termination in private contracts, and neither section 28(2) nor section 29(1)(a) creates such a right in this context. The school acted reasonably and in the best interests of the children by giving extended notice and considering the interests of all stakeholders. The termination clause is not unconstitutional or contrary to public policy, and PAJA does not apply as the school was exercising a contractual right, not a public power. The appeal was dismissed,...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 150
Parties
Appellant: AB; Appellant: 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; Respondent: The Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa; Amicus Curiae: Equal Education
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2018
Case Number
1134/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Shongwe ADP, Cachalia JA, Mocumie JA, Schippers JA, Mothle AJA
Legal Topics
Best Interests of the Child, Right to Basic Education, Termination of Contract, Public Policy in Contract, Procedural Fairness, Horizontal Application of Bill of Rights
Constitutional Law Family and Children Commercial and Corporate Best Interests of the Child Right to Basic Education Termination of Contract Public Policy in Contract Procedural Fairness +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

CB

Appellant

Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

Selwyn Marx

Respondent

The Board of Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

The Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng

Respondent

The Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa

Respondent

Equal Education

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a private school may terminate parent contracts without affording a hearing to the parents or affected children.
  2. 2 Whether the termination clause in the parent contract is unconstitutional or contrary to public policy.
  3. 3 Whether the school is bound by constitutional duties under sections 28(2) and 29(1) of the Constitution when terminating contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the parent contracts were freely and voluntarily entered into, with clear terms permitting termination on notice for any reason. The Constitution does not impose a general requirement for a hearing before termination in private contracts, and neither section 28(2) nor section 29(1)(a) creates such a right in this context. The school acted reasonably and in the best interests of the children by giving extended notice and considering the interests of all stakeholders. The termination clause is not unconstitutional or contrary to public policy, and PAJA does not apply as the school was exercising a contractual right, not a public power. The appeal was dismissed,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.