PI v St Charles College, Pietermaritzburg

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Vahed J
• Judgment Date: 22 January 2014
• Docket Number: 5167/2013
• Court: KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
• Hearing Date: 23 September 2013
• Citation: 2014 JDR 0099 (KZP)

Vahed J:

[1]

Lisa Endlich Hefferman, described as a stay at home mother and the author of Goldman Sachs: The Culture of Success and Be the Change, wrote an insightful magazine article in the October 2013 issue of The Atlantic

2014 JDR 0099 p2

Vahed J

(http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/parents-ruin-sports-for-their-kids-by-obsessing-about-winning/280442/) titled Parents Ruin Sports for Their Kids by Obsessing about Winning. The Atlantic is an American magazine founded in 1857 and published in Boston, Massachusetts In it she said:

'The aching desire to win can be seen on the sidelines of competitions even among the youngest participants. Parents pace the sidelines, twitching at every kick or pitch or shot of the ball, shouting exhortations at their children and the team. I have watched parents cover their eyes, unable to watch, such is the stress they feel. In many cases it becomes clear that it is the parents who want to win. Parents want the dopamine thrill of winning, the heady rush that adults feel with success. Winning, even for spectators (and the research was done only on males), gives a testosterone surge, and losing actually lowers hormone levels. As parents we so identify with our kids that their success quickly becomes our own. As spectators, parents seek confirmation even at the earliest stages that great athletic possibilities exist for their child: a better team, starting spot, varsity experience or college scholarship.?

[2]

Although it is nowhere expressly stated in the papers, or raised in argument for that matter, that extract captures the subliminal message that is conveyed by the papers in this application.

[3]

The applicant is an attorney in Pietermaritzburg. He brings these proceedings in his representative capacity as the father and natural guardian of his son, PI ("PI jnr").

[4]

The first respondent ("St Charles") is an independent school established and registered in terms of chapter 5 of the South African Schools Act, 84 of 1996 ("the Act"). It is located in Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg.

[5]

The second respondent is the principal of St Charles.

2014 JDR 0099 p3

Vahed J

[6]

At all times material PI jnr was a minor and a learner enrolled at and attending St Charles. During 2013 he turned 18 (on 2 August 2013) and was in his final year of schooling (Grade 12).

[7]

In paragraph 4 of the founding affidavit the applicant describes the nature of the case as being:

'...an application to reinstate [his] son, PI jnr to his former position as the "first team cricket captain" of the St Charles school first cricket team, pending the outcome of an internal enquiry to be conducted at the first Respondent's school as set out more fully in the Notice of Motion...?

[8]

The relief claimed in the Notice of Motion is the following:

'1.

The First Respondent is directed to institute an internal hearing and/or to utilise its internal remedies within a period of fifteen (15) days from the grant of this order (hereinafter referred to as "the internal hearing") for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties relating to the removal of PI jnr as the captain of the First Respondent's first cricket team.

2.

It is directed that:

2.1

PI jnr and the Applicant are permitted to attend the said internal hearing;

2.2

PI jnr and the Applicant be permitted to make representations at the internal hearing;

2.3

The Applicant and PI jnr be entitled to adduce and challenge evidence at the internal hearing.

3.

The Respondents are directed to provide the Applicant with written reasons for the final decision reached at the conclusion of the internal hearing should the Applicant request same.

2014 JDR 0099 p4

Vahed J

4.

Pending the outcome of the internal hearing to be instituted as aforesaid, PI jnr be and is hereby reinstated as captain of the First Respondent's first cricket team forthwith.

5.

The Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, only in the event of them opposing same.

6.

The Applicant is granted leave to supplement his Founding Affidavit insofar as may be necessary.'

[9]

The facts which underpin the application are dealt with in great detail in the affidavits. In summary they recount PI jnr's prowess as a school cricketer and his various achievements, particularly during his high school years.

[10]

At the end of the third term in 2012, when PI jnr was in Grade 11, he was advised by the first respondent's first team cricket coach, Dave Karlsen ("Karlsen"), that he had been appointed as captain of the first cricket team for 2013. On 15 January 2013 PI jnr was advised that he had been removed (dropped) from the first team. The respondents maintained that it was PI jnr's loss of form subsequent to the end of the 2012 third term that motivated the decision to drop him from the first team.

[11]

Aggrieved at that decision, and in an effort to reverse it, the applicant mounted a challenge against the respondents which involved lengthy correspondence (inappropriately set out in turgid detail on the applicant's

2014 JDR 0099 p5

Vahed J

professional practice letterhead) and a written request for access to information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000.

[12]

The application was launched on 09 May 2013, the founding affidavit being deposed to on the same day. No urgency was alleged and the ordinary time limits as prescribed by the Uniform Rules of Court applied to the exchange of further affidavits. The matter was initially set down on 28 May 2013 on which day it was adjourned sine die with no order as to costs. The answering affidavits were delivered on 31 July 2013 and the replying affidavits were delivered on 13 September 2013. The matter was argued on 23 September 2013. The reasons for the delay, firstly between May and July, and secondly between July and September, became apparent from the affidavits exchanged in a separate application brought by the applicant for an Order condoning the late delivery of his replying affidavits and his heads of argument.

[13]

In his affidavit in support of condonation the applicant says that although the respondents? notice of intention to oppose was delivered in time no answering affidavits were delivered by the respondents within the time allowed (ie. by 21 May 2013). He goes on to say that the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations as a result of which no pressure was brought to bear upon the respondents to deliver their answer and that when eventually the answer was delivered on 31 July 2013 it was not as a result of any prompt from him. The further delays thereafter are explained by him as being due to, firstly, his illness, secondly, his counsel's other commitments and finally to a power outage at counsel's chambers.

[14]

The respondents do not oppose the grant of condonation but nevertheless delivered an affidavit explaining what transpired and annexing thereto

2014 JDR 0099 p6

Vahed J

correspondence confirming every fact testified to therein. Regrettably, that affidavit reveals that the applicant has been less than frank in his explanation and the respondents assert that the applicant has...