- A Wits student was refused registration for 2026 after failing to meet compulsory progression requirements in her Bachelor of Science degree.
- The High Court found that she lacked the foundational subjects required to progress to third-year study and could not realistically complete the degree within the permitted timeframe.
- Judge SC Mia ruled that the university acted lawfully and fairly, and that courts will not interfere in academic administration without clear evidence of unlawfulness or irrationality.
A student who accumulated 264 credits instead of the required 432 over four years in a three-year Bachelor of Science programme was lawfully excluded from registering for 2026, the High Court in Johannesburg has ruled.
Judge SC Mia dismissed Catherine Mwila Mwaba’s urgent application to review and set aside the decision of the University of the Witwatersrand refusing her readmission.
Mwaba enrolled in 2022 for a three-year Bachelor of Science degree requiring 432 credits for completion, with a maximum period of five years to finish the qualification. By the end of 2025, she had accumulated 264 credits. She still required 168 credits to graduate.
Crucially, she had not passed Linear Algebra II or Mathematical Statistics II, which were compulsory second-year subjects required to progress into third-year Computer Science or Computational Applications. The university explained that these were foundational courses necessary for advanced study. Without them, progression was not permitted under faculty rules.
Judge Mia accepted this position, stating that “the academic shortfall is not marginal.” The deficiency is related not only to outstanding credits, but also to “the period within which the degree is required to be completed.”
The time constraint
If allowed to register in 2026, it would have been Mwaba’s fifth and final year within the maximum completion period.
The court questioned how she would realistically complete the remaining academic load while still lacking the prerequisite subjects required for third-year enrolment.
Without the foundational courses, the judgment noted, “it is doubtful that she will complete the degree within the reasonable time frame permitted.”
Was the process unfair
Mwaba argued that the readmissions committee failed to properly consider her exceptional circumstances, including a psychologist’s report. She maintained that the university had discretion to allow special curriculum arrangements.
The court confirmed that university readmission decisions constitute administrative action reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. However, it emphasised that the review is limited to assessing lawfulness, rationality and procedural fairness.
“Procedural fairness does not guarantee a favourable outcome, only a fair process,” Judge Mia said.
The evidence showed that Mwaba had been informed she was at risk of exclusion, submitted written representations to the first readmissions committee, and was permitted to appear in person before a second committee to make further submissions.
There was no objective record indicating that she had been prevented from presenting her case. The court found that the threshold of fairness had been met.
Judge Mia further stated that “the mere fact that a discretaionary power exists does not oblige a decision maker to grant relief requested.” A refusal, the court held, does not in itself demonstrate a failure to exercise discretion.
Why the court refused to intervene
The High Court stressed that it does not substitute its own view for that of academic authorities unless there is clear unlawfulness or irrationality.
Granting provisional registration, the court held, would amount to an intrusion into academic administration. “This is a step courts take only in the clearest cases of unlawfulness and irrationality. This is not such a case.”
The urgent application was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
