“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” (Mark Twain)

Our Constitution guarantees everyone rights to education, but that doesn’t mean parents can necessarily pick and choose which schools they send their children to. Nor does it mean that they can expect schools to continue educating their children if they don’t pay the agreed fees.

A recent High Court judgment provides a perfect example. 

Breaking the camel’s back – 4 years of arrears totalling R407k

A father’s failure to settle a bill of over R407k in unpaid school fees for his daughter’s education at “an elite private school” in Cape Town has led to him being interdicted from enrolling her there for the 2025 school year.

The school’s patience has clearly run out after years of the father’s failure to stick to a payment plan, negotiated four years ago. The Court characterised his actions as a “modus operandi of non-payment and broken undertakings”. His explanation, that affordability is the issue and that he could not pay the outstanding arrears, cut no ice with the Court. 

The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”, said the Court, was the father’s “flat-out refusal to sign the most recent restructuring agreement, which had been drafted in a last-ditch effort to record in writing the terms of the most recent agreement between the [school] and the [father] so that his daughter could be enrolled at the school for her next academic year.”

The child’s best interests are always paramount

Our courts are the “upper guardians” of all minor children, and this Court was, as always, careful to consider the daughter’s best interests. 

Critically, she is not left without alternative educational opportunities – that would be a breach of her Constitutional rights as well as a violation of the strict warnings from our courts that “schools that provide basic education are under a constitutional duty not to diminish the right to basic education and at all times to act in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) 

In this instance, the school had secured “an alternative good school” for her – a government-subsidised school in the same suburb as her brother’s school. The father’s rejection of this alternative school as being “‘unsuitable’ because [it] is not predominantly white, and this does not align with his daughter’s cultural values” was summarily dismissed by the Court with the terse comment: “The less said about this argument, the better”.

The enrolment contract and the school’s obligations 

This case is an important reminder that we are bound by the agreements we make. The father, in signing his daughter’s enrolment contract, was aware that:

• The school is an independent school, getting virtually no government funding and relying on school fees and donations to fund its operations and to educate its learners.
• Failure to pay fees was a breach of contract which would inevitably lead to the daughter’s exclusion from the school.

Our courts, once again putting the interests of children first, insist that “any decision to suspend or expel a learner during school term must satisfy due process. These include adequate warning prior to suspension or exclusion, provision to make arrangements to settle fees, or the opportunity to make arrangements to enrol a learner at a new school.” (Emphasis added.)

The school in this case had clearly gone “above and beyond” in this regard, and the Court had no hesitation in issuing the interdict with costs payable by the father who must now enrol his daughter in another school – and pay this school its outstanding fees with interest.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews