Private school fees fight heads to court after pupils locked out of classes

For two grade 12 pupils, dreams of a better future now hang in the balance after they allegedly found themselves locked out of school over unpaid fees — disrupting preparations for crucial mid-year examinations that could determine the course of their matric year.

Instead of preparing for revision classes and upcoming Independent Examinations Board (IEB) exams, the siblings, together with their younger brother, are now at the centre of a court battle unfolding at the Johannesburg high court after human rights organisation Section27 stepped in to challenge what it describes as the unlawful exclusion of the children from a private school.

In papers, Section27 argues that while schools are entitled to recover outstanding fees from parents, they cannot use children’s access to education as leverage for debt collection.

The organisation, acting on behalf of the parent of the three pupils, wants the court to urgently order the children’s re-enrolment and compel the school to register the two grade 12 pupils for their 2026 IEB examinations.

According to court papers, the children had attended the school for several years, with the younger sibling currently in grade 4 while the older pair are in their matric year.

“This case concerns three children,” the heads of argument read. “Two are in grade 12. They stand on the threshold of completing their school education. The third is a young child of compulsory school-going age.”

The papers state that none of the children bears responsibility for the debt dispute. They have instead become “its principal victim”.

Section27 argues the consequences of the exclusion are immediate and potentially devastating for the matric pupils, who now risk missing examinations and losing an entire academic year if urgent intervention is not granted.

“The consequences are immediate and severe. Every day outside the classroom is a day of education lost,” the papers state.

According to the application, the dispute over school fees had persisted for some time, with the school allegedly previously excluding and later re-admitting the pupils after payments were made.

However, matters escalated in May when the school allegedly took what Section27 describes as a “single, final and unconditional decision” to terminate the children’s enrolment, refuse exam registration and bar them from the school premises.

A school does not welcome, timetable and assess children whom it has not enrolled.

—  Section27's heads of argument

A central issue in the litigation is whether the pupils were properly enrolled for the 2026 academic year.

The school allegedly claims the enrolment contract had already been terminated in October 2025 and that the pupils were therefore never enrolled for 2026.

But Section27 argues the school’s own correspondence tells a different story.

The organisation points to a series of communications allegedly sent by the school throughout 2026, including welcome letters, timetables, progression meetings, subject selection discussions and exam-related notices involving the Grade 12 pupils.

“A school does not welcome, timetable and assess children whom it has not enrolled,” the heads of argument state.

The matter also raises broader constitutional questions about the obligations of private schools when dealing with children’s access to education.

In its court papers, Section27 relies heavily on previous Constitutional Court rulings, including the landmark Juma Musjid and Pridwin judgments, which established that independent schools remain bound by constitutional obligations when decisions affect a child’s right to basic education.

The organisation argues the school failed to provide the children and their parent with a fair hearing before taking the exclusion decision.

“A demand to pay is not a hearing,” the papers argue.

Section27 further contends that the school failed to properly consider the best interests of the children, particularly the potentially catastrophic impact on the two grade 12 pupils whose matric examination pathway now hangs in uncertainty.

The papers argue that for matric pupils, the ability to write final examinations forms part of the constitutional right to basic education itself and is not merely an administrative process.

The organisation warns that if examination registration deadlines pass before the matter is resolved, no future court order could restore the lost matric year.

Section27 also argues that the younger child continues to suffer ongoing educational harm with every missed day of schooling.

“The continued exclusion of a child from basic education constitutes an ongoing infringement of constitutional rights,” the papers state.

While acknowledging that the school remains entitled to pursue unpaid fees through normal legal channels, Section27 argues there were several lawful alternatives available to recover the debt without excluding the learners from school.

“The respondents remained free to sue for the debt, insist on security, or negotiate a payment structure,” the papers state.

“What they could not constitutionally do was to convert access to education into leverage for debt collection.”

Section27 says urgent court intervention is now necessary because the academic calendar continues moving while the learners remain excluded from classes.

For the matric pupils, revision classes are expected to begin in July, while mid-year examinations are scheduled shortly thereafter.

“The school’s financial prejudice is recoverable,” the papers argue. “The learners’ educational loss is plainly not recoverable.”