Ermelo High
20 February 2007
Education Director General Duncan Hindle said today that the children denied
admissions to Ermelo High School were expected to register at the school.
On Monday, 19 February 2007, a full bench of the Pretoria High Court ordered
that the order given by Judge Prinsloo on Monday, 5 February, be set aside;
that the order made by the full bench on Tuesday, 13 February, be effective,
notwithstanding any notice of leave to appeal and that costs be determined
during the proceedings of the review application.
The Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, had approached the court with an
application to allow the children to register, notwithstanding the appeal
lodged by the school on Wednesday, 14 February and this had been supported by
the court.
Mr Duncan Hindle said:
"With the success of this application, the interest of the Minister of
Education in the matter largely ends. Her concern was purely to ensure the
admission of learners to school. Even though she is now joined in the review
application, the judicial review of the original Mpumalanga decision is for the
province to defend." The review application will take place in the coming
months.
Editor's Notes
1. On Monday afternoon, 19 February, a full bench of the Pretoria High Court
heard an urgent application from the Minister of Education opposing the
school's notice of leave to appeal against the order of court given on Tuesday,
13 February.
2. The court decided that the full-bench decision of 13 February was not
appealable.
3. The court decided that the school had not complied with court rules in
bringing the notice of leave to appeal.
4. "In the normal sequence of court events," said Eben Boshoff, Director of
Legal Affairs in the Department of Education," a party can only appeal once the
grounds for the original decision have been made available. The school appealed
without knowledge of those grounds in order to lock in the status quo
ante."
5. The court also commented that no reasons would be given for the 13 February
court order. The application was interlocutory in nature and it was not a
practice of the court to provide written reasons in interlocutory
applications.
6. The court made it clear that the explanations given in hearing the
application did not constitute a judgment, but were merely comments made by the
court. The court effectively decided that the potential harm to children kept
out of school outweighed any potential harm to the school in including
them.
Enquiries:
Lunga Ngqengelele
Cell: 082 566 0446
Issued by: Department of Education
20 February 2007
