St Cyprian’s School has been granted an order to interdict the enrolment of a learner due to outstanding school fees amounting to R407 902,15.
Judge Ed Wille of the Western Cape High Court presided over the hearing held on 22 November 2024, with the order being issued shortly after on 26 November, followed by the release of reasons on 29 November.
The case centred around the parents, whose daughter is currently enrolled at the exclusive institution. St Cyprian’s School, operating independently without government funding, relies heavily on the timely payment of school fees to maintain its educational offerings.
The court findings revealed that despite various attempts at restructuring payment plans and accommodating the first respondent’s financial difficulties, the agreed payment terms were repeatedly breached, leading to a significant backlog in owed fees stretching over four years. During these proceedings, the first respondent admitted the inability to meet the financial obligations concerning his daughter’s education.
Throughout their engagement, St Cyprian’s School made numerous concessions, including several written agreements to address the overdue fees. However, the pursuit of these arrangements proved to be futile as the first respondent failed to fulfil his commitments.
Judge Wille noted that the respondents had the opportunity to secure alternative schooling for their daughter at a government-subsidised institution, yet rejected this placement on the grounds of perceived unsuitability, citing concerns regarding the demographic composition of the school and its alignment with their daughter’s cultural values. This argument raised eyebrows in court, as it starkly contrasted with the primary concern of fulfilling the financial obligations to support the ongoing education of their child.
While the ruling touched upon the constitutional considerations surrounding the education of minors, the court ultimately focused on contract law principles, concluding that the applicant was justified in seeking interdictory relief as the contractual relationship with the first respondent had been irreparably damaged. The court emphasised that the applicant had made exhaustive efforts to arrange for the daughter’s education and had acted in good faith throughout the process.
In a notable aspect of the ruling, the court declined the applicant’s request for costs on an attorney-and-client scale, reflecting the first respondent’s precarious financial situation, and determined that costs should be borne on a party-and-party basis instead.
