- Parents of Grade 1 twins challenged a decision placing their children at Rouxville Primary School after being informed too late to lodge an appeal against the refusal by their preferred schools.
- Acting Judge S Anderssen found the Western Cape Education Department acted procedurally unfairly because the parents were notified of the outcome only after the appeal deadline had passed.
- The decision was set aside and sent back for reconsideration, but the parents were denied legal costs because they created urgency by delaying their court application.
The High Court in the Western Cape has set aside a school placement decision affecting six-year-old twins after finding that their parents were notified too late to exercise their legal right to appeal the outcome.
The case was brought by the parents, who approached the court as guardians of their minor children after the Western Cape Education Department placed the twins at Rouxville Primary School for the 2026 academic year.
The parents had applied for placement at Laerskool Mikro, De Kuilen Primary School and Bastion Primary School. Their preference was Mikro, partly because their older son was already enrolled there, while De Kuilen High School was attended by their daughter.
The family argued that keeping their children at nearby schools was important for financial and safety reasons because they owned only one vehicle and lived in a high-crime area.
Acting Judge S Anderssen heard the urgent application on 25 February 2026 and delivered judgment electronically on 9 March 2026.
Schools oversubscribed and twins placed elsewhere
According to the Western Cape Education Department, all three preferred schools were oversubscribed.
The department stated that public schools determine their own admission policies through their governing bodies, while provincial authorities must ensure that every learner ultimately receives a school placement.
When the applications to the preferred schools were unsuccessful, the department placed the twins at Rouxville Primary School instead.
The department argued that the twins already had a school placement and that their parents chose not to send them to Rouxville even though the distance from their home was similar to the other schools.
It further contended that the parents were acting out of personal convenience rather than the best interests of the children.
Late notification blocked appeal rights
The central issue before the court was whether the parents had been given a fair opportunity to challenge the decision.
The parents told the court that they only learnt on 29 August 2025 that the twins had been placed at Rouxville. They later received formal notification on 18 September 2025 that their applications to their preferred schools had been unsuccessful.
By that time, the official deadline to appeal a refusal had already passed. The date was 31 August 2025.
The education department argued that the parents had actually been informed earlier through an online admissions system.
After examining the evidence, Judge Anderssen found it more probable that the parents only became aware of the final outcome after the appeal deadline.
The judge wrote: “The right of appeal would only have started on 18 September 2025, when the parents learnt that the twins had been refused admission to a public school. However, this was already after the appeals cut-off date.”
The court concluded that this sequence of events deprived the parents of a meaningful opportunity to exercise their appeal rights. “In my view, this was procedurally unfair,” Judge Anderssen said.
Court refuses to choose a school itself
Although the court found procedural unfairness, it declined to order that the twins be placed at any specific school.
Instead, the decision was set aside and sent back to the education authorities and the governing bodies of Laerskool Mikro and De Kuilen Primary School for reconsideration.
Judge Anderssen explained that courts generally do not substitute their own decisions for administrative authorities unless the full record of the decision making process is available.
The judge emphasised that determining school capacity is complex. The judgment said, “Determining capacity is complex, not only for the whole school, but also for each grade and class.”
Urgency criticised but case still heard
The court was critical of the parents for waiting several months before approaching the court and then giving the respondents only four days’ notice. Judge Anderssen described this as self-created urgency.
“I agree with the submissions by counsel for each of the respondents that the applicants created the urgency in this matter,” the judge said.
Despite this criticism, the court decided to hear the case because the twins were not attending school. “However unreasonable the applicants’ actions, the twins are currently not attending school, and this cannot be in their best interests,” the judge wrote.
No costs awarded
Although the parents succeeded in having the decision reviewed, the court made no order as to costs. Judge Anderssen said the parents’ delay and their use of urgent court procedures justified denying them costs.
“The timeline imposed on the respondents was wholly unreasonable and largely the result of the applicants’ own actions,” the judgment stated. The court also thanked the parents’ legal team, who acted pro bono.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
