- The High Court has granted a Wits student permission to appeal after her challenge to the university’s refusal to renew her 2026 registration was dismissed.
- Judge SC Mia said another court could reasonably come to a different conclusion on issues like missing records, medical evidence and how university policies are interpreted.
- The appeal will look at whether the university’s decision-making was lawful and fair and whether the student’s exceptional circumstances were properly considered.
A University of the Witwatersrand student has been given the right to continue her fight against the refusal to renew her registration.
Catherine Mwila Mwaba brought the application after her initial challenge against the University of the Witwatersrand and its Registrar was dismissed. The dispute is about the university’s decision not to renew her registration for the 2026 academic year.
Judge SC Mia in the High Court in Johannesburg found that the case raises several important questions, and it is possible another court could reach a different outcome. Because of this, the court held that the requirements for granting leave to appeal had been met.
Missing records raise concerns
One of the main issues in the case is the lack of any objective record of what happened before the university’s WRC 2 committee, which considered Mwaba’s academic progress.
The court noted there were no minutes, recordings or records made at the time of the proceedings. Judge Mia said another court may come to a different conclusion about whether the university properly justified the lawfulness, rationality and fairness of its decision in those circumstances.
The judge pointed out there is a real question about whether a missing record should work in favour of the university’s position. Another court may find that the lack of a record made it hard to know if all relevant information was considered and if the committee used its powers correctly.
Dispute over psychologist's letter
The appeal will also look at a psychologist’s letter and health-related representations made by Mwaba. According to the judgment, the university said that even if the psychologist’s letter had been considered, it would not have changed the outcome. Mwaba argued this showed the committee had already made up its mind or limited its own discretion.
Judge Mia said this issue deserves consideration by an appeal court. The judge noted that another court might see a statement that evidence would not have changed the outcome as raising questions about whether the decision-making process was really open to being influenced by new information.
The judgment highlighted that the psychologist’s letter and Mwaba’s health circumstances are central to the dispute. Questions remain about whether this evidence was properly before the committee, whether it was considered, and whether it could have influenced the committee’s decision.
Judge Mia wrote that whether this evidence was properly before WRC 2, whether it was considered, and whether it could have affected the use of discretion are all matters where reasonable judges might disagree.
Interpretation of university policies questioned
The court also found that the way the university’s WRC Policy Booklet is interpreted raises important legal questions. Mwaba argues that in an N plus 2 case involving exceptional circumstances, the WRC 2 committee had to refuse renewal but should have recommended the matter to the VPC for further consideration.
The university argued that the committee acted within its powers and there was no room to depart from the minimum progression requirements unless a committee member thought referral was needed.
Judge Mia found that another court could reasonably disagree about the correct interpretation of the policy and how the WRC 2 process, exceptional circumstances and VPC consideration come together.
The appeal will also look at whether the court that reviewed the case focused too much on the academic decision itself, instead of just looking at whether the administrative process was lawful.
Judge Mia noted, “The applicant’s complaint is not just that the court reached the wrong academic conclusion, but that it may have dealt with the case as if it were deciding the merits of the academic decision, rather than reviewing the legality of the administrative process.”
Appeal still has practical consequences
Although the 2026 registration period has already closed, the court found the appeal is not just academic. Mwaba argued that the disputed decision still affects her academic standing and her chances of registering in the future.
The court agreed that if this is true, there may still be meaningful relief, including setting aside the decision and sending the matter back for reconsideration.
Judge Mia also found that the case raises bigger questions that affect students beyond Mwaba’s individual circumstances. The judge wrote that the issues raised are not limited to the applicant’s individual circumstances. They could matter for students subject to academic progression rules, especially where exclusion or non-renewal involves claims of exceptional circumstances, health evidence and decisions based on the university’s discretion.
In granting leave to appeal, the court said the case raises important questions about accountability at public universities, record-keeping in exclusion and registration decisions, and the balance between academic freedom and constitutional duties.
The costs of the leave to appeal application will be determined as part of the appeal proceedings.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
