- The university failed to reinstate a doctoral student despite a clear court order.
- The judge says the institution showed wilful and deliberate defiance.
- Punitive costs were awarded for violating the student’s rights.
The University of Limpopo has been found in contempt of court after failing to comply with a Polokwane High Court order to reinstate PhD student Dickiel Kusainda and appoint external assessors for his thesis. The court’s ruling follows more than a year of delays, during which the university repeatedly failed to act on the original June 2024 order.
Instead of complying, the university filed for leave to appeal in both the same court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. When it later withdrew its application, the initial order automatically came back into force. Yet, months passed with no action, forcing Kusainda to return to court to seek enforcement.
Judge S Du Plessis AJ described the university’s conduct as “both wilful and mala fide,” and rejected its claim that it was “in the process of obeying” the order. The court found this was an attempt to avoid accountability and stressed that the university’s excuses for non-compliance were unacceptable.
“The order is very clear and it does not make any provision for a process,” Judge Du Plessis said. “The time for compliance lapsed more than a year ago, yet the First Respondent is still in the process of obeying. There has been no actual compliance.”
Court reaffirms authority of judicial orders
The judgment reaffirmed that no institution, including a university, can ignore the authority of the courts. Quoting a Constitutional Court precedent, the judge warned that “disobedience towards court orders or decisions risks rendering our courts impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery.”
The court said senior officials, including Vice-Chancellor Professor Nehemia Mahlo Mokgalong and Registrar Kwena Masha, must take direct responsibility for ensuring compliance. They were ordered to assist in carrying out the court’s directives and to file affidavits within three days explaining the steps taken to comply.
“Not in good faith”
Judge Du Plessis found that the university’s decision to withdraw its appeal after delays was “not in good faith” and appeared aimed purely at buying time. He said the conduct “was deliberate and not justified” and had caused the applicant unnecessary hardship.
“The respondents’ contemptuous conduct has resulted in the applicant’s rights continuing to be violated and has caused him further serious prejudice,” the judge said.
The court also rejected the university’s defence that it had acted on legal advice, stating that “legal advice given and relied on does not constitute a defence to contempt of court, unless the respondents can demonstrate the absence of wilfulness or bad faith.”
Punitive costs to underline seriousness
Given the seriousness of the defiance, the court imposed a punitive costs order against the university, to be paid on an attorney-and-client scale. This includes the costs of two counsel and allows the applicant’s pro bono legal team to recover fees under the Legal Practice Act.
Judge Du Plessis said the matter had constitutional implications because it involved the violation of a student’s right to administrative justice and access to education. The ruling orders the university to reinstate Kusainda’s registration and appoint external assessors within five days, failing which its officials may face fines or imprisonment.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
