Moodley v Kenmont School and Others (828/2010) [2012] ZAKZDHC 23 (30 March 2012)
The court found that the settlement agreement was not binding as it was unsigned, subject to further negotiation, and never made an order of court. The amended Admission Policy was not ultra vires, as the policy for ordinary public schools did not apply to schools for learners with special education needs. However, the implementation of the amended Admission Policy was done in bad faith and for the ulterior purpose of excluding the boy without a disciplinary hearing. The school’s decision to exclude the boy was not based on a fair process and was specifically targeted at him, violating the principles of administrative fairness under PAJA. The court reviewed and set aside the decision,...
- Citation
- [2012] ZAKZDHC 23
- Parties
- Applicant: Devarajh Moodley; Respondent: The Kenmont School; Respondent: The Kenmont School Governing Body; Respondent: Provincial Head of the Department of Education; Respondent: Members of the Executive Council; Respondent: Matsie Angelina Motshekga NO
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 30 March 2012
- Case Number
- 828/2010
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Application and Interim Orders
- Outcome
- Application granted. The decision of the First and Second Respondents not to re-admit or re-instate Remano Moodley to Kenmont School is reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded against First and Second Respondents jointly and severally, excluding costs before Ntshangase J in November 2010.
- Judges
- Mbatha
- Legal Topics
- School Admission Policy, Ultra Vires, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Disciplinary Procedure, Compromise and Settlement, Judicial Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Devarajh Moodley
Applicant
The Kenmont School
Respondent
The Kenmont School Governing Body
Respondent
Provincial Head of the Department of Education
Respondent
Members of the Executive Council
Respondent
Matsie Angelina Motshekga NO
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Application and Interim Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dispute was compromised by a settlement agreement.
- 2 Whether the amended Admission Policy of the school is ultra vires the South African Schools Act and National Education Policy Act.
- 3 Whether the decision to exclude the learner from the school should be reviewed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the settlement agreement was not binding as it was unsigned, subject to further negotiation, and never made an order of court. The amended Admission Policy was not ultra vires, as the policy for ordinary public schools did not apply to schools for learners with special education needs. However, the implementation of the amended Admission Policy was done in bad faith and for the ulterior purpose of excluding the boy without a disciplinary hearing. The school’s decision to exclude the boy was not based on a fair process and was specifically targeted at him, violating the principles of administrative fairness under PAJA. The court reviewed and set aside the decision,...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The decision of the First and Second Respondents not to re-admit or re-instate Remano Moodley to Kenmont School is reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded against First and Second Respondents jointly and severally, excluding costs before Ntshangase J in November 2010.
Orders
- The decision/action of the First and Second Respondents not to re-admit or re-instate Remano Moodley to Kenmont School, Durban, is hereby reviewed and set aside.
- The First and Second Respondents are directed to immediately admit and re-instate Remano Moodley to Kenmont School, Durban, with immediate effect.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment