Case Summary: AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others
Applicants: AB and CB (Parents)
Respondents: Pridwin Preparatory School, Selwyn Marx N.O., Board of Pridwin
Preparatory School, Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng,
Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa
Amici Curiae: Centre for Child Law, Equal Education
Background
The case concerns the termination of a Parent Contract by Pridwin Preparatory
School, which led to the expulsion of AB and CB's children (EB and DB) from the
school. The termination was prompted by the parents' alleged misconduct and the
resultant breakdown of their relationship with the school's headmaster and other
stakeholders. The parents contested this decision, claiming it violated their children's
rights under the South African Constitution, specifically the right to a basic education
and the best interests of the child.
High Court Proceedings
The High Court ruled in favor of the school, stating that the headmaster's decision to
terminate the contract took into account the best interests of all 445 learners at the
school. It found no constitutional obligation for an independent school to provide a
hearing before terminating such a contract.
Supreme Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, with a 4-1 majority
ruling that independent schools are not constitutionally required to offer a hearing
under these circumstances. It emphasized that the school's primary obligation is to
operate in the best interests of all its students and not to provide a basic education
as defined by public schooling standards.
Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal. The primary issues addressed
were:
Whether the termination of the Parent Contract was conducted in a fair manner.
The extent of the school's constitutional obligations concerning children's rights in
private education.
Judgment
The Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the applicants, setting aside the decisions
of the lower courts. The key points from the judgments include:
Nicholls AJ (Dissenting): Highlighted the importance of education and the need for
fair processes in decisions affecting children's educational rights. Emphasized that
independent schools must consider the best interests of the child when making such
decisions.
Theron J (Majority): Stressed that the termination of the Parent Contract without a
fair hearing violated the children's rights to basic education and their best interests.
Affirmed that private entities are under a constitutional obligation to respect children's
rights and that Pridwin Preparatory School failed to provide a fair process before
expelling the children.
Order
Leave to appeal was granted.
The appeal was upheld, and the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set
aside.
The decision by Pridwin Preparatory School to cancel the Parent Contract was
declared invalid.
Each party was ordered to pay its own costs in all courts.
Significance
This case underscores the constitutional obligations of private educational
institutions in South Africa to uphold children's rights and ensure fair processes in
administrative decisions that significantly impact these rights. It sets a precedent for
how independent schools must handle disciplinary actions and contract terminations
involving students.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court's decision in AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School
reinforces the principle that children's best interests are paramount in all matters
concerning their education, including in the context of private school contracts. This
judgment highlights the necessity for fair procedural practices and the consideration
of children's rights in the realm of private education.
Media summary
Case Background
The case concerns the termination of contracts by Pridwin Preparatory School,
which allowed two children to attend the school. The parents of these children, who
are the applicants in the case, challenged the school's decision to terminate these
contracts.
Key Events and Issues
Incidents Leading to Termination: The relationship between the school and the
applicants soured due to a series of misconduct incidents by the first applicant (one
of the parents), involving aggressive behavior at school sporting events.
Contract Clause: The contracts (Parent Contracts) included a clause (Clause 9.3)
allowing the school to terminate the contract for any reason with a full term's written
notice.
Termination of Contracts: In June 2016, the headmaster of Pridwin terminated the
contracts under Clause 9.3 due to the incidents of misconduct.
Legal Proceedings
High Court: The parents sought an interim order to keep their children at Pridwin
and challenged the termination as unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed the
application, supporting the school's decision, stating it considered the best interests
of the children and that the school did not provide a basic education under section
29(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA): The applicants appealed, but the SCA upheld
the High Court's judgment, stating that the school's actions were reasonable and in
line with public policy.
Constitutional Court Rulings
The case progressed to the Constitutional Court, which provided four separate
judgments addressing various aspects of the issue:
First Judgment:
Jurisdiction and Mootness: Despite the children no longer attending Pridwin, the
case was deemed to have broader implications for independent schools.
Constitutional Duties of Independent Schools: Independent schools providing
basic education have constitutional duties, including ensuring children's rights are
not negatively infringed.
Fair Procedure Requirement: The court found that independent schools must
follow a fair procedure before terminating contracts, including potentially offering a
hearing.
Second Judgment:
Constitutional Invalidity: The decision to terminate the contracts was found
constitutionally invalid as it breached the children's rights.
Negative Obligation: Independent schools have a negative obligation not to
impair children's rights to a basic education.
Fair Process: Pridwin was required to provide an opportunity for representations
regarding the termination's impact on the children.
Third Judgment:
Common Legal Propositions: Highlighted the legal principles agreed upon by
the first two judgments, focusing on the right to basic education in independent
schools.
New Rule: Established that independent schools must not diminish or interfere
with a child's right to basic education.
Fourth Judgment:
Children's Independent Rights: Emphasized the procedural right of children to
be heard and participate in decisions affecting their lives.
Best Interests of the Child: Underlined the importance of considering children's
views in major decisions like removal from school.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court ruled that the termination of the Parent Contracts by Pridwin
Preparatory School without following a fair procedure was unconstitutional. This case
set a precedent that independent schools must ensure the best interests of the child
and provide an opportunity for children and their representatives to make
representations before making such significant decisions.
This summary captures the essence of the case, its legal journey, and the critical
judgments provided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa .
