We studied 2yrs in unaccredited college - students LIST OF THE ALLEGED OWED FORMER STUDENTS
MBABANE – Graduates and graduands of a private tertiary institution are demanding a refund of their tuition fee, after they discovered that the institution’s qualifications were not recognised.
Seven former students of XtremeTraining and Conferencing Academy have run to court seeking the director of the institution, Portia Dlamini, to refund them money amounting to E70 545, that they had spent on tuition fees.
The former students were studying Phlebotomy Technician and Psychosocial between the years 2020 and 2022.
One of the students, Nkosingiphile Matsebula, who is the first plaintiff in the matter, submitted that on July 20, 2020, she enrolled for a Diploma in Psychosocial Support at Xtreme Training and Conferencing Academy.
Conducting
The plaintiff completed the course in September 2022, at the college, which was situated at Design Centre, in Manzini.
The plaintiff submitted further that, when she and the other six students enrolled at the college, the defendants entered into an oral agreement with them. The six other plaintiffs in the matter are Welile N. Mkhonta, Senzeka N. Mngometulu, Ntombifuthi Shongwe, Ncediwe Ndzabandzaba, Thandeka Ndzabandzaba and Thulani Stewart Dlamini.
The former students stated in court papers filed at the High Court of Eswatini, that part of the oral agreement was that upon completion of the courses, they would be employed right away because the first defendant, which is the institution, was allegedly registered with the Eswatini Higher Education
Council (ESHEC) and its registration number was
03/2018.
ESHEC is an independent body corporate that was established in
2015, through the Higher Education Act No.2 of 2013. It is responsible for the registration, establishment, accreditation and regulation of all institutions of higher learning. The body issues a list of all accredited institutions of higher learning in the country.
“It was part of the oral agreement, that the plaintiff would pay to the defendants a sum of E13 950 in respect of tuition fees,” she said in the court application.
The terms and conditions of the oral agreement were similar with the other six plaintiffs, save for the fact that the other plaintiffs were pursuing different courses that commenced and ended on different dates and had to pay different amounts, which were attached to the application.
Matsebula submitted further that upon entering into the oral agreement, by the parties, Portia Dlamini, who was listed as the second defendant, furnished the plaintiffs with the college prospectus which were also attached to the court
Welile N. Mkhonta
Senzeka N. Mngometulu
Ntombifuthi Shongwe
Ncediwe Ndzabandzaba
Thulani Stewart Dlamini
Thandeka Ndzabandzaba papers.
The plaintiff submitted that acting on the basis of the oral agreement between the parties, she duly enrolled at the college and commenced her studies, which ran for the duration of the agreed time frame. The plaintiff duly paid the tuition fee in full. The plaintiff submitted further that the other six plaintiffs also did the same.
Furthermore, the students said upon completion of their various courses and after payment of the full tuition fees, they discovered that the institution had made a material misrepresentation of facts when the oral agreement was entered into.
E10 600
E11 600
E10 795
E9 950
E3 750
E9 900
Discovered
They discovered that the institution was not registered with ESHEC. The first defendant was not compliant with the relevant laws of the Kingdom of Eswatini.
They also submitted that the defendants’ misrepresentation of facts exposed the plaintiffs to serious time and financial prejudice.
The plaintiffs went on to state that they spent their precious time and resources studying for courses that would remain worthless in their professional lives. The plaintiff discovered further that their respective qualifications were not recognised anywhere and they were not eligible for employment because they obtained their qualifications from a college that is not registered with the ESHEC. Moreover, they cited that ESHEC placed a notice in the local print media advising the members of the public that the first defendant was not a registered institution.
“When the oral agreement between the parties was entered into the plaintiffs were representing themselves and the first defendant was represented by the second defendant.”
Agreement
Matsebula also submitted that the conduct of the defendants, in collecting money from the plaintiffs for worthless courses, amounted to a material breach of the oral agreement. They felt that the defendants had a duty to disclose to the plaintiffs, upon enrolment, that the institution was not registered with ESHEC. They submitted that if the information was relayed to the plaintiffs timeously, they would have not registered and enrolled with the academy.
“As a direct result of the defendants’ unlawful conduct and material breach of the oral agreement, the plaintiffs have suffered damages collectively amounting to a sum of E70 545,” stated the Matsebula.
The plaintiffs submitted that the material breach of the oral agreement entitled them to a full refund of the monies paid to the institution in respect of the tuition fees.
Therefore, they demanded that they should be repaid the funds in full.
The veracity of the allegations against the institution are yet to be tested in court.