Mgquba and others v Principal St John's College and others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Smith J
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 1489 (ECM)
• Hearing Date: 20 April 2023
• Docket Number: 1347/2023
• Court: Eastern Cape Division

Smith J:

[1]

The applicants seek an order, inter alia, directing the principal of St Johns College (the first respondent) to withdraw an advertisement in respect of various teachers' posts at the school and prohibiting the Chairperson of the School Governing Body (the second respondent) from shortlisting, interviewing or employing anyone in the advertised posts.

[2]

The 18 applicants asserted that they have the necessary locus standi to bring the application because they have children who are enrolled as learners at the school. They did not provide the names of the children or the grades in which they are currently enrolled. This assertion was squarely challenged by the respondents in their answering affidavit.

[3]

The applicants contended that the impugned advertisement is unlawful because the decision to create the advertised posts was not taken by the School Governing Body (the SGB) and that, in any event, the latter has not adopted a budget as required in terms of section 38 of the Schools Act, 84 of 1996. It was thus not entitled to take decisions which would have had long term financial implications for the school.

[4]

The respondents, in their answering papers, have stated that the decision to advertise the posts was taken by the Executive Committee of the SGB, on the recommendation of the Financial Committee. The advertised posts were not new, but existing posts that became vacant as a result of the suspension of three teachers, one teacher being on maternity leave and another having retired. The SGB consequently had no alternative but to advertise the posts in order to avoid the situation where several classes would be without teachers.

[5]

The respondents have also raised various points in limine, the most compelling point being the challenge to the applicants' locus standi. In their answering affidavit, they have unequivocally stated that the applicants were not known to them, that they have failed to provide their identity numbers or the names and grades of their children so as to enable the respondents to verify their claim that they have children who are

2023 JDR 1489 p3

Smith J

enrolled as learners at the school. Surprisingly, the applicants in their replying affidavit, instead of at the very least providing the names and grades of their children, simply repeated the bald allegations contained in their founding papers.

[6]

Ms Mxotwa, who appeared for the applicants, has conceded that they could conceivably only have a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought in the notice of motion if they are indeed parents of children enrolled as learners at the school. The relief they seek, namely to interdict the SGB from...