Kenmont School and Another v D M and Others (454/12) [2013] ZASCA 79 (30 May 2013)

Kenmont School and Another v D M and Others (454/12) [2013] ZASCA 79 (30 May 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot because the learner in question had already matriculated and was no longer at the school. Any judgment or order would have no practical effect or result, as required by section 21A of the Supreme Court Act. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the matter should be decided for future guidance or potential disciplinary action, noting that the high court had already found the school had the power to amend its admission policy and that no cross-appeal was brought on that point. The court emphasised that it does not give advisory opinions or decide abstract legal questions. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 79
Parties
Appellant: Kenmont School; Appellant: Kenmont School Governing Body; Respondent: D M; Respondent: Provincial Head of the Department of Education; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council; Respondent: Matsie Angelina Motshekga NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2013
Case Number
454/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Tshiqi, Plasket, Van der Merwe, Saldulker
Legal Topics
School Admissions Policy, Ultra Vires, Administrative Fairness, Mootness, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure School Admissions Policy Ultra Vires Administrative Fairness Mootness Costs Award

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenmont School

Appellant

Kenmont School Governing Body

Appellant

D M

Respondent

Provincial Head of the Department of Education

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council

Respondent

Matsie Angelina Motshekga NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal and any order made thereon would have any practical effect or result within the meaning of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether the amended admission policy of the school was implemented in bad faith and for an ulterior motive.
  3. 3 Whether the decision to exclude the learner from the school should be reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot because the learner in question had already matriculated and was no longer at the school. Any judgment or order would have no practical effect or result, as required by section 21A of the Supreme Court Act. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the matter should be decided for future guidance or potential disciplinary action, noting that the high court had already found the school had the power to amend its admission policy and that no cross-appeal was brought on that point. The court emphasised that it does not give advisory opinions or decide abstract legal questions. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, jointly and severally, including reserved costs but excluding costs incurred during November 2010 before Ntshangase J.