Attaching school assets ‘fruitless’

Many disadvantaged by apartheid legacy

A SIGNIFICANT number of South African public schools which have been disadvantaged by the country’s colonial and apartheid past continue to operate under conditions of extreme deprivation.

Therefore, attaching assets to satisfy litigation debts would have devastating effects, even on betterresourced schools.

So said the Constitutional Court yesterday, as it declined to confirm a KwaZulu-Natal High Court order declaring section 58A(4) of the South African Schools Act, 84 of 1996, constitutionally invalid.

The section provides that the assets of a public school may not be attached as a result of any legal action taken against the school.

“The proscription in section 58A(4) of the Schools Act of the attachment of the assets of public schools is meant to protect this very important right, the right to basic education.

“It averts the obvious harm that would surely eventuate if school assets could be attached,” read a unanimous judgment penned by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.

According to the background of the case, contained in the Constitutional Court judgment, Deverajh Moodley had successfully challenged the admission policy of Kenmont School in the region’s high court, which ordered the school respondents to pay his legal costs.

Moodley’s son was enrolled at the school and was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for allegedly attacking another pupil with a pair of scissors.

During the inquiry, the son was forced to spend every break outside the principal’s office, the court papers read. This was because, according to the school, the son had posed a danger to the other children.

The school governing body then amended the school’s admission policy, which provided for the automatic readmission of children already on the school’s books.

An exception was made to not readmit a child who had demonstrated “behavioural problems or conduct which… seriously interfered with (the) education of the other learners (or)… endangered the psychological health of the other learners or educators”.

Moodley then brought urgent proceedings in the high court, seeking the review and setting aside of the policy.

Moodley successfully challenged the admission policy, and the school was ordered to pay his legal costs.

The school respondents took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and, like the high court, made a costs order in favour of the applicant.

Moodley’s taxed bill of costs amounted to almost R600 000, excluding interest.

After being unsuccessful at getting the money, Moodley obtained a warrant of execution against the school and attached the school’s bank account and a motor vehicle.