AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (CCT294/18) [2020] ZACC 12; 2020 (9) BCLR 1029 (CC); 2020 (5) SA 327 (CC) (17 June 2020)

AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others (CCT294/18) [2020] ZACC 12; 2020 (9) BCLR 1029 (CC); 2020 (5) SA 327 (CC) (17 June 2020)

The Constitutional Court held that independent schools providing basic education are subject to constitutional obligations not to diminish a child's right to basic education and must act in the best interests of the child. Clause 9.3 of the Parent Contract, which allowed Pridwin to terminate the contract unilaterally without affording a fair hearing, was declared unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and unenforceable to the extent that it permits cancellation without fair procedure. The Court found that the best interests of the child and the right to basic education are directly implicated in private school contracts, and that procedural and substantive fairness must be observed...

Citation
[2020] ZACC 12
Parties
Applicant: AB; Applicant: CB; Respondent: Pridwin Preparatory School; Respondent: Selwyn Marx N.O.; Respondent: Board of Pridwin Preparatory School; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng; Respondent: Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa; Amicus Curiae: Centre for Child Law; Amicus Curiae: Equal Education
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Case Number
CCT 294/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Clause 9.3 of the Parent Contract declared unconstitutional and unenforceable to the extent that it allows cancellation without fair procedure. The decision to terminate the Parent Contract was invalid. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron
Legal Topics
Best Interests of the Child, Right to Basic Education, Horizontal Application of Bill of Rights, Contractual Termination in Education, Procedural Fairness, Children's Participation Rights
Constitutional Law Family and Children Civil Procedure Best Interests of the Child Right to Basic Education Horizontal Application of Bill of Rights Contractual Termination in Education 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CB

Applicant

Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

Selwyn Marx N.O.

Respondent

Board of Pridwin Preparatory School

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng

Respondent

Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa

Respondent

Centre for Child Law

Amicus Curiae

Equal Education

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an independent school may terminate a child's schooling contract without affording a fair hearing to the child and parents.
  2. 2 Whether clause 9.3 of the Parent Contract permitting unilateral termination is unconstitutional and contrary to public policy.
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the child and the right to basic education are implicated in private school contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that independent schools providing basic education are subject to constitutional obligations not to diminish a child's right to basic education and must act in the best interests of the child. Clause 9.3 of the Parent Contract, which allowed Pridwin to terminate the contract unilaterally without affording a fair hearing, was declared unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and unenforceable to the extent that it permits cancellation without fair procedure. The Court found that the best interests of the child and the right to basic education are directly implicated in private school contracts, and that procedural and substantive fairness must be observed...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Clause 9.3 of the Parent Contract declared unconstitutional and unenforceable to the extent that it allows cancellation without fair procedure. The decision to terminate the Parent Contract was invalid. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld and the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal is set aside.