- The High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the mother’s contempt application against a private school and its executives.
- Judge Wentzel-Thompson ruled that any application to enforce the earlier school registration order must be brought before Judge Vele under Section 18(3).
- The enforcement application will be heard together with the school’s pending application for leave to appeal, while each party will pay its own legal costs.
The High Court in Johannesburg has told the mother of twin Grade 12 sisters to return to Acting Judge M Vele if she wants to enforce an earlier order requiring their registration at a private school, after dismissing her urgent contempt application.
Judge H Wentzel-Thompson ruled that contempt proceedings were not the appropriate mechanism to compel compliance because the school had already filed an application for leave to appeal. Instead, the mother must bring an application under Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act before Judge Vele, who will hear it together with the school’s pending appeal.
School fee dispute sparked the litigation
The dispute arose after Sifiso Learning Group terminated the mother’s parent contract over unpaid school fees of R183,524 and removed the twins from its 2026 registration process. Sifiso Learning Group (Pty) Limited, founded by Sizwe Nxasana, is a private education group.
On 9 June 2026, Judge Vele ordered the school to readmit the learners, issue an invoice for registration fees and disbursements, and register them after payment of the required fees.
The following day, the school issued an invoice for R207,198, comprising R183,524 described as reinstatement fees and R23,674 in examination registration fees. The mother paid only the examination component, arguing that the order did not require settlement of the outstanding school fees before the twins could be registered.
Court finds no contempt
The mother argued that the school deliberately ignored the court order by refusing to complete the twins’ registration after receiving payment of the examination fees.
Judge Wentzel-Thompson found that Judge Vele’s original order was ambiguous and that the school’s interpretation, although ultimately incorrect, created a reasonable doubt that its conduct was wilful and mala fide. “The remaining issue is wilfulness and mala fides. It is here that the applicant’s case fails,” the judge said.
Judge Wentzel-Thompson added that the school’s interpretation “was in my view wrong. It does not, however, follow that it was dishonest or contumacious.” The court held that contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate disobedience, a standard the mother had failed to satisfy.
Judge Vele will decide the next step
Rather than enforcing the order itself, Judge Wentzel-Thompson directed the mother to pursue relief under Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act before Judge Vele.
That application will be heard alongside the school’s application for leave to appeal the original order, allowing Judge Vele to determine whether the school registration order should remain enforceable while the appeal is pending.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
