THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case No: 219/2008

HOËRSKOOL ERMELO
First Appellant

(1st Applicant a quo)
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY OF
HOËRSKOOL ERMELO
Second Appellant

(2nd Applicant a quo)
and

THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION: MPUMALANGA
First Respondent

(1st Respondent a quo)

J KHUDAIJA
Second Respondent

(2nd Respondent a quo)

D MUNERA
Third Respondent

(3rd Respondent a quo)

E AYOOB
Fourth Respondent

(4th Respondent a quo)

C VAN GREUNEN
Fifth Respondent

((5th Respondent a quo)

Q NQELE
Sixth Respondent

(6th Respondent a quo)

J KRUGER
Seventh Respondent

(7th Respondent a quo)

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Eighth Respondent

(8th Respondent a quo)

N M MASILELA
Ninth Respondent

(9th Respondent a quo)

Neutral citation:
Hoërskool Ermelo v The Head of Department of Education:
Mpumalanga (219/08) [2009] ZASCA 22 (27 MARCH 2009)

Coram:
Harms DP, Brand, Cloete, Ponnan, Snyders JJA

Heard:
12 MARCH 2009

Delivered:
27 MARCH 2009

Summary:
Schools – language policy – ss 22 and 25 of Schools Act 84
of 1996 – language policy remains the exclusive function of
the governing body of an existing school

________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________

On appeal from: High Court, Pretoria (Ngoepe JP, Seriti J and Ranchod AJ
sitting as court of first instance).
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced by the following:
‘a
The first respondent’s decision to withdraw the function of the
governing body of Hoërskool Ermelo to determine the language
policy of the school is set aside.
b
The first respondent’s decision to appoint an interim committee
to perform the function of the governing body to determine the
language policy of Hoërskool Ermelo is set aside.
c
The decision of the interim committee to amend the language
policy of Hoërskool Ermelo from Afrikaans medium to parallel
medium is set aside.
d
Learners that have enrolled at Hoërskool Ermelo since 25
January 2007 in terms of a parallel medium language policy

shall be entitled to continue to be taught and write examinations
in English until the completion of their school careers.
e
The costs of the application are to be paid by the first and eighth
respondents jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be
absolved.’
3.
The costs of the appeal are to be paid by the first and eighth
respondents jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be
absolved.
______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________

SNYDERS JA (HARMS P, BRAND, CLOETE and PONNAN JJA concurring)

[1] The first appellant is the Hoërskool Ermelo (the school), a public school
as defined in the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (the Act), and the
second appellant is its governing body.  The first respondent is the Head of
Department of Education in Mpumalanga (head of department) and the eighth
respondent is the Minister of Education of Mpumalanga. They are the only
respondents opposing the appeal. The second to sixth respondents are
members of an interim committee appointed by the head of department to
determine the language policy of the school. The seventh respondent is the
principal of the school. The ninth respondent is a parent of one of the learners
who sought tuition in English and was joined for purposes of one of the interim
applications that do not feature in this appeal.

[2] The appellants applied in the court a quo (Ngoepe JP, Seriti J and
Ranchod AJ sitting as a court of first instance) for an order reviewing and
setting aside three decisions:1 the decision of the head of department to
withdraw the function of the governing body to determine the language policy
of the school; the appointment by the head of department of an interim
committee to change the language policy of the school; and the decision of
the interim committee to change the language policy of the school from an
Afrikaans medium school to a parallel medium school. The court a quo
dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The appellants subsequently
obtained leave from this court.

[3] This case is not, as at first blush appears, about language policy at
schools, a highly emotive issue in the South African context, but rather about
the principle of legality and the proper exercise of administrative power.

[4] The strife between the department of education, the school and its
governing body about its language policy started as far back as 2001. Events
during the course of that year culminated in the head of department
suspending the principal and disbanding the governing body of the school on
12 December 2001, the afternoon after school broke up for the December
holidays. Following the suspension the head of department appointed an
acting principal and promptly instructed him both to change the language
policy of the school and to admit learners to the school to be taught in English.

1 The urgent interim application that was granted and later set aside is not relevant to the
appeal.

[5] Litigation between, amongst others, the principal and the governing
body of the school on the one hand and the head of department on the other
hand, achieved the reinstatement of the principal and the governing body
early in January 2002 in terms of a judgment by Moseneke J in Schoonbee v
MEC for Education, Mpumalanga.2 One hundred and thirty-two charges were
compiled by the department against the principal, but were never pursued.

[6] At the beginning of 2006 the department approached the school to
enrol 27 grade 8 learners who had to be taught in English.  A compromise
was reached: the learners were enrolled at a neighbouring English medium
school but accommodated on the premises of the school. At the beginning of
2007 those learners were all accommodated in English medium schools in the
area.

[7] During 2006 it was evident that there was a need for English tuition in
the Ermelo circuit beyond the available capacity. The department was aware
of this at the time as the head of department wrote to the school on 1 March
2007 that:
‘You will recall that in 2006 my department had a crisis of the learners for the Grade 8 level
who could not be accommodated in all the schools within the Ermelo 1 Circuit’.
It came as no surprise when, on 15 August 2006, the manager of the Ermelo
circuit of the department wrote to the principals of all schools in the circuit as
follows:
‘You will recall that in 2006, a Grade 8 English Medium Class of approximately 46 learners
could not get accommodation at Ligbron Academy of Technology and Ermelo Combined

2 2002 (4) SA 877 (T).

School since these are the only institutions in the Circuit where English FIRST Language is
utilized as medium of instruction in Grade 8 – 12. This still remains a crisis.
Against this background, the Circuit would therefore request each and every principal to give
advice as to what other avenues could be explored to resolve accommodation crisis in 2007
in our circuit schools, specifically for First English Medium Grade 8 learners.’

[8] Suggestions were made in response to the invitation to utilise the old
‘Kommando’ building, the ‘convent’ and the ‘Spoornet building’. Those
suggestions all entailed the establishment of a new school in separate
premises to provide a long term solution for the growing number of learners
requiring tuition in English. None of these suggestions found favour with the
department, as (according to the answering affidavit deposed to by the head
of department) the buildings ‘do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
department and would have to be rented or acquired from their present
owners.  They would also require substantial renovations in order to make
them suitable as classroom facilities for learners’.

[9] The matter apparently received no further attention from the
department until Monday 8 January 2007, two days before the official opening
of schools in the Ermelo circuit for the new academic year. On that day the
principal and the chairperson of the school governing body were summoned
to a meeting with the head of department to be held the following day. The
head of department did not attend the meeting but sent officials who handed a
letter to the principal in terms of which he was instructed ‘to admit learners [to
be taught in English] at Hoërskool Ermelo for the 2007 academic year with
effect from 10/01/2007’, contrary to the language policy of the school.

[10] On 10 January 2007 a group of learners that required tuition in English,
their parents and officials from the department arrived at the school for the
purpose of enrolling the learners. The principal, on the express written
instruction of the chairman of the governing body, adhered to the language
policy of the school, with the result that the pupils were not enrolled and
school commenced without them.

[11] On Thursday 25 January 2007 the head of department addressed a
letter in terms of s 25 of the Act to the second to sixth respondents (to whom I
shall refer collectively as ‘the interim committee’) informing them of the issue
between the department and the school and appointing them ‘with immediate
effect to determine the language policy of Hoërskool Ermelo’. In the last
paragraph of the letter the members of the interim committee were ‘requested
to ensure that the Language policy determined by yourself will enable the
learners to be admitted at Hoërskool Ermelo as a matter of urgency’. The
interim committee was also called upon, albeit not in the letter, to attend a
meeting at 12:00 on the same day. At the meeting an official of the
department (who deposed to an affidavit in these proceedings confirming this)
told the members of the interim committee that they were appointed to revise
the language policy of the Ermelo High School, in order to make it possible for
the 113 learners who cannot be accommodated elsewhere to attend the said
school. At 14:30 that very day, after the conclusion of the meeting of the
interim committee,3 a letter from the head of department to the school
governing body, purporting to have been written in terms of s 22 of the Act,
was delivered to the school. It said that the head of department had ‘decided

3 According to the minutes of the meeting it terminated at 13:45.

to withdraw [the governing body’s] function of determining the language policy
of the “Hoërskool” Ermelo with immediate effect’.

[12] At the meeting of the interim committee it was decided that the
language policy of the school be changed. The formulation of the new
language policy took place after the meeting and ultimately read, ‘[t]he
language of teaching and learning at the school will be English and Afrikaans
(Parallel Medium)’. It was common cause that this decision was taken without
consultation with relevant parties or the gathering of relevant information other
than information supplied by representatives of the department at the meeting.

[13] The appellants rushed to court to obtain interim relief pending a review
of the respondents’ decisions and actions, but were ultimately unsuccessful in
all applications. In the result the language policy of the school has remained
as amended by the interim committee. Twenty learners were admitted in 2007
in terms of the amended language policy and are being taught in English. The
appellant has undertaken that regardless of the outcome of this appeal, all
learners admitted in terms of the amended language policy will receive tuition
in English until the end of their school careers.

[14] These facts show that the department of education has, since 2001,
regarded changing the language policy of the school as the solution to its
obligation to provide tuition in English to learners. In his answering affidavit
the head of department emphasises the fact that the school has fewer
learners per available classroom than any other school in the Ermelo circuit.
Whilst that fact may have presented an attractive option for the department it

had to remind itself, before action was taken, that the right to receive tuition in
English in a public educational institution provided by the State,4 if reasonably
practicable, is a right against the State and not a right against each and every
public school.5 Furthermore, whatever action the head of department took that
involved the school had to comply with the principle of legality as determined
in the Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).

[15] With regard to the particular action taken by the head of department it
is useful to first look at certain key provisions of the Act to get an appreciation
of the composition of the governing body and its powers. The Act vests in the
governing body the governance of the school. The governing body ‘may
perform only such functions and obligations and exercise only such rights as
[are] prescribed by the Act’.6 Section 6 of the Act grants authority to the
governing body of a public school to ‘determine the language policy of the
school subject to the Constitution,7 this Act and any applicable provincial law’
on a non-racial basis within the norms and standards for language policy as
determined by the Minister of Education.8 The governing body comprises
elected parents of learners, educators, members of staff who are not
educators, learners, the principal in his or her official capacity and co-opted

4 Section 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
5 Minister of Education, Western Cape v Governing Body, Mikro Primary School 2006 (1) SA
1 (SCA) para 31.
6 S 16(1).
7 The full text of s 6 reads: ‘(1) Subject to the Constitution and this Act, the Minister may, by
notice in the Government Gazette, after consultation with the Council of Education Ministers,
determine norms and standards for language policy in public schools.
(2) The governing body of a public school may determine the language policy of the school
subject to the Constitution, this Act and any applicable provincial law.
(3) No form of racial discrimination may be practised in implementing policy determined under
this section.
(4) A recognised Sign Language has the status of an official language for purposes of
learning at a public school.’
8 Such norms and standards were published in Government Gazette 18546 on 19 December
1997, but do not play a role in this case.

members, without voting rights, provided that the number of parent members
‘must comprise one more than the combined total of other members of a
governing body who have voting rights’.9 This composition of the governing
body provides for broad participation in the decision-making process with
particular emphasis on the contribution by parents of learners.

[16] Aside from authorising the governing body to determine the language
policy, s 20 confers on it certain core functions that include adopting a
constitution and a code of conduct for learners; developing a mission
statement; determining times of the school day; administering and controlling
the property of the school, and recommending the appointment of educators
and non-educator staff to the head of department.

9 Section 23: (1) Subject to this Act, the membership of the governing body of an ordinary
public school comprises – (a) elected members; (b) the principal, in his or her official capacity;
(c) co-opted members.
(2) Elected members of the governing body shall comprise a member or members of each of
the following categories: (a) Parents of learners at the school; (b) educators at the school: (c)
members of staff at the school who are not educators; and (d) learners in the eighth grade or
higher at the school.
(3) A parent who is employed at the school may not represent parents on the governing body
in terms of subsection (2)(a).
(4) The representative council of learners referred to in section 11(1) must elect the learner or
learners referred to in subsection (2)(d).
(5) The governing body of an ordinary public school which provides education to learners with
special needs must, where practically possible, co-opt a person or person with expertise
regarding the special education needs of such learners.
(6) A governing body may co-opt a member or members of the community to assist it in
discharging its functions.
(7) The governing body of a public school contemplated in section 14 may co-opt the owner of
the property occupied by the school or the nominated representative of such owner.
(8) Subject to subsection (10), co-opted members do not have voting rights on the governing
body.
(9) The number of parent members must comprise one more than the combined total of other
members of a governing body who have voting rights.
(10) If the number of parents at any stage is not more than the combined total of other
members with voting rights, the governing body must temporarily co-opt parents with voting
rights.
(11) If a parent is co-opted with voting rights as contemplated in subsection (10), the co-
option ceases when the vacancy has been filled through a by-election which must be held
according to a procedure determined in terms of section 28(d) within 90 days after the
vacancy has occurred.
(12) If a person elected as a member of a governing body as contemplated in subsection (2)
ceases to fall within the category referred to in that subsection in respect of which he or she
was elected as a member, he or she ceases to be a member of the governing body.’

[17] In addition to these functions a governing body may apply in terms of s
21 to the head of department to be allocated further functions. This application
may be refused only if the governing body concerned does not have the
capacity to perform such functions effectively.10 Functions capable of
allocation are those set out in s 21(1):
‘Subject to this Act, a governing body may apply to the Head of Department in writing to be
allocated any of the following functions:
(a) To maintain and improve the school’s property, and buildings and grounds occupied by
the school, including school hostels, if applicable;
(b) to determine the extra-mural curriculum of the school and the choice of subject options in
terms of provincial curriculum policy;
(c) to purchase textbooks, educational materials or equipment for the school;
(d) to pay for services to the school;
(dA) to provide an adult basic education and training class or centre subject to any applicable
law; or
(e) other functions consistent with this Act and any applicable provincial law.’

[18] These functions are either non-essential to the functioning of the
school, (s 21(1)(dA)) or, if not allocated, are performed by the department. It is
because the department is usually responsible for these functions that they
can only be allocated to the governing body if the latter has the capacity to
perform them effectively. This is the only sensible distinction between the
functions contained in s 21 and those elsewhere in the Act.  If there was no
distinction, there is no reason why the legislature would have made separate
provision for them in s 21 instead of simply including them in s 20.

10 See s 21(2).

[19] Section 22(1) authorises the head of department to withdraw a
function of a governing body, on reasonable grounds.  In s 22(2) the
procedure to be followed in the event of a withdrawal of a function is set out. It
involves the furnishing of reasons, calling for representations and due
consideration thereof. Section 22(3) provides for the urgent withdrawal of a
function and prescribes a similar procedure to s 22(2) except that it takes
place after the urgent withdrawal. Subsection (4) allows the head of
department to reverse or suspend the urgent withdrawal of a function ‘for
sufficient reasons’.11

[20] The court a quo found the head of department’s decision in terms of s
22(3) to have been validly taken. This decision was based on the factual issue
whether urgency prevailed that allowed action in terms of s 22(3). The
applicability of s 22(3) to the facts was not considered. The appellants
contend that s 22 is not applicable to the facts, as the function of determining
the language policy of the school is not allocated by the head of department in
terms of s 21 and cannot be withdrawn by him in terms of s 22.

11 Section 22 reads as follows: ‘(1) The Head of Department may, on reasonable grounds,
withdraw a function of a governing body.
(2) The Head of Department may not take action under subsection (1) unless he or she has –
(a) informed the governing body of his or her intention so to act and the reasons therefor;
(b) granted the governing body a reasonable opportunity to make representations to him or
her relating to such intention; and
(c) given due consideration to any such representations received.
(3) In cases of urgency, the Head of Department may act in terms of subsection (1) without
prior communication to such governing body, if the Head of Department thereafter –
(a) furnishes the governing body with reasons for his or her actions;
(b) gives the governing body a reasonable opportunity to make representations relating to
such actions; and
(c) duly considers any such representations received.
(4) The Head of Department may for sufficient reasons reverse or suspend his or her action in
terms of subsection (3).
(5) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Head of Department in terms of this section
may appeal against the decision to the Member of the Executive Council.’

[21] Language is a sensitive issue. Great care is taken in the Act to
establish a governing body that is representative of the community served by
a school and to allocate to it the function of determining the language policy.
The Act authorises only the governing body to determine the language policy
of an existing school and nobody else. As nobody else is empowered to
exercise that function, it is inconceivable that s 22 was intended to give the
head of department the power to withdraw that function, albeit on reasonable
grounds, and appoint somebody else to perform it, without saying so explicitly.

[22] The structure of the Act sheds further light. As s 22 follows immediately
after s 21 and a distinction exists between the functions allocated in s 21 and
elsewhere in the Act, it logically follows that s 22 is designed to deal with the
withdrawal of functions allocated in terms of s 21. The logical default position
if functions allocated in terms of s 21 are withdrawn is that they revert to the
department of education. This would explain why s 22, unlike s 25, does not
provide for the appointment of others to perform the functions that are
withdrawn.

[23] The respondents relied on the decision of this court in Minister of
Education, Western Cape v Governing Body, Mikro Primary School12 that the
head of department could make use of s 22 to withdraw the function of
determining the language policy. In that case a similar situation to the present
had arisen and the court a quo found that the head of department had acted
unlawfully when he imposed a directive that amended the Afrikaans language
policy of the Mikro Primary School and in that way purported to force that

12 See note 5 above.

school to enrol learners who required tuition in a different language. It was
argued on appeal that a finding that the directive was unlawful would leave
the head of department without a remedy if a governing body unreasonably
refused to change its language policy. The court rejected this argument and
expressed the opinion in an obiter dictum that the head of department would
inter alia have been entitled to make use of the provisions of ss 22 and 25 of
the Act.

[24] The considerations expressed above concerning the purpose of s 22
and the distinction between the functions of a governing body contained in ss
20 and 21 were not considered in Mikro.

[25] The error in the interpretation of s 22 in Mikro becomes even more
apparent when s 25 is considered. The head of department purportedly
appointed the interim committee in terms of s 25(1) to perform the function of
the governing body and change the language policy of the school. Section 25
reads:
‘(1) If the Head of Department determines on reasonable grounds that a governing body has
ceased to perform functions allocated to it in terms of this Act or has failed to perform one or
more of such functions, he or she must appoint sufficient persons to perform all such
functions or one or more of such functions, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding
three months.
(2) The Head of Department may extend the period referred to in subsection (1), by further
periods not exceeding three months each, but the total period may not exceed one year.
(3) If a governing body has ceased to perform its functions, the Head of Department must
ensure that a governing body is elected in terms of this Act within a year after the
appointment of persons contemplated in subsection (1).

(4) If a governing body fails to perform any of its functions, the persons contemplated in
subsection (1) must build the necessary capacity within the period of their appointment to
ensure that the governing body performs its functions.’

[26] The clear language of s 25(1) requires that before the head of
department could make use of the authority granted in the section, he would
have had to have determined, on reasonable grounds, that the governing
body had ceased to perform its functions. In this case the facts do not support
a reasonable conclusion that the governing body ceased to determine the
language policy of the school. The head of department was dissatisfied with
the result of the governing body’s determination but relied on the interpretation
of s 25 in Mikro to submit that the governing body ceased to perform that
function when he withdrew it in terms of s 22. In Mikro, s 25 was found
applicable in similar circumstances on the basis of the interpretation that ‘[i]f a
function is withdrawn, the governing body ceases to perform that function, and
s 25 becomes applicable’.13

[27] The effect of the interpretation in Mikro is in my respectful view
unacceptable because it enables the head of department to create the state of
affairs that would entitle him or her to act in terms of s 25(1) whereas the
language of s 25(1) requires that state of affairs to have arisen as a
prerequisite, reasonably established, before the head of department has the
power to act in terms of s 25(1). The interpretation in Mikro enables a
functionary to abuse power and makes possible indirectly that which cannot
be attained directly.

13 Para 41.

[28] The governing body of the school did indeed perform the function of
determining the language policy of the school. This is not the kind of function
that is performed on a daily or weekly or even yearly basis, but one that
persists in its effect, once performed, until changed or amended by the
governing body. The governing body historically decided the language policy
and the school continued to implement it by admitting learners consistent with
that policy.

[29] The rest of s 25 also illustrates why the interpretation in Mikro does not
stand scrutiny. Sufficient persons are to be appointed by the head of
department in terms of ss (1) to perform the function or functions that the
governing body has ceased to perform and to do so for a period not
exceeding 3 months. The period of 3 months can be extended by the head of
department for further periods of 3 months, but not for a total period of more
than 1 year.14 Those appointed are obliged to ‘build the necessary capacity
within the period of their appointment to ensure that the governing body
performs its functions’.15 The head of department is also obliged to ‘ensure
that a governing body is elected in terms of [the] Act within a year after the
appointment of persons contemplated in subsection (1)’.16 This shows that the
aim of s 25 is to ensure that when a governing body ceases to perform its
functions, in the worst case scenario, a fully functional governing body should
be in place to continue performing its functions within a maximum period of
one year. These provisions are clearly inconsistent with an interpretation that

14 Subsection (2).
15 Section 25(4).
16 Section 25(3).

a head of department could simply take away the functions of a fully
operational governing body and then proceed to comply with the rest of s 25.
In addition, if ss 22 and 25 are utilised together, as in this instance, the
requirements of s 25 strip the consultation and reconsideration envisaged in
ss 22(3), (4) and (5) of any meaning. Counsel for the head of department and
the Minister was constrained to submit that once reinstated, the governing
body could change the language policy back to what it was. The untenable
situation that would result underlines the fallacy of attempting to apply the two
sections together.

[30] For the abovementioned reasons I am of the view that the obiter dictum
in Mikro on the interpretation of ss 22 and 25 is clearly wrong. The court a quo
followed Mikro and its decision is to be set aside for the same reasons.

[31] The woes of the respondents do not end with the interpretation of the
relevant sections of the Act. The steps that were purportedly taken in terms of
the Act failed, in several respects, to comply with the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act.17 The head of department made the appointment
of an interim committee in terms of s 25 to determine the language policy of
the school before he had withdrawn that power from the governing body; the
consequence of this premature purported appointment was that the language
policy was changed by the interim committee before the power of the
governing body to do so was withdrawn; far from allowing the interim
committee to reach their own decision the head of department, in the letter of
appointment addressed to them, instructed them to ‘ensure that the Language

17 Section 6(2).

policy determined by [them] will enable the learners to be admitted at
Hoërskool Ermelo as a matter of urgency’ and this was reinforced by a
member of the department who attended the meeting; it does not appear that
the interim committee was afforded the opportunity to consider all relevant
and available information before taking an ‘urgent’, prescribed decision. In the
light of the conclusion that ss 22 and 25 did not empower the head of
department to act as he did, it is not necessary to discuss the detail of the
contraventions of PAJA. It suffices to say that these contraventions were
sufficient in themselves to have obliged the court a quo to grant the relief
sought by the appellants.

[32] As in Mikro the concern was expressed on behalf of the respondents
that this conclusion leaves them without a remedy in similar circumstances. It
does not. PAJA prescribes the standard for all administrative action. The
respondents are entitled to review the language policy determined by a
governing body of a school if they make out a case in terms of PAJA.

[33] I therefore conclude that the head of department’s withdrawal of the
governing body’s function to determine the language policy of the school was
unlawful; that the head of department’s appointment of the interim committee
was unlawful; and that the decision taken by the unlawfully appointed interim
committee was invalid.

[34] In the result the following order is made:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced by the following:

‘a
The first respondent’s decision to withdraw the function of the
governing body of Hoërskool Ermelo to determine the language
policy of the school is set aside.
b
The first respondent’s decision to appoint an interim committee
to perform the function of the governing body to determine the
language policy of Hoërskool Ermelo is set aside.
c
The decision of the interim committee to amend the language
policy of Hoërskool Ermelo from Afrikaans medium to parallel
medium is set aside.
d
Learners that have enrolled at Hoërskool Ermelo since 25
January 2007 in terms of a parallel medium language policy
shall be entitled to continue to be taught and write examinations
in English until the completion of their school careers.
e
The costs of the application are to be paid by the first and eighth
respondents jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be
absolved.’
3.
The costs of the appeal are to be paid by the first and eighth
respondents jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be
absolved.

_________________________
S Snyders
Judge of Appeal

BRAND JA

[35] I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my colleague
Snyders JA. I agree with both her reasoning and conclusions. But I am sure it

will not go unnoticed that I also agreed with the obiter dictum in Mikro, which
Snyders JA overrules in para 30 above. With the wisdom of hindsight I agree
that, for the reasons given by her, the interpretation we gave to sections 22
and 25 of the Act in Mikro cannot be sustained. Perhaps this is a good
illustration why obiter dicta should be resorted to sparingly for the very reason
that they are not tested against the outcome of a real life dispute.

[36] Without the benefit of a real life dispute, the rather cynical abuse to
which the Mikro interpretation gave rise in this case could hardly have been
anticipated. What the head of the department did in this case was exactly
what Mikro eventually decided he has no right to do, namely to change the
language policy of a school. The fact that he did so through the medium of an
interim committee which he used as a ventriloquist's dummy can hardly make
any difference. To add insult to injury, he purported to employ the urgent
procedure in s 22(3), which meant that the language policy of the school had
already been changed before the school governing body had had the
opportunity to make the representations contemplated by the section as to
why their function should not be withdrawn. In fact, as we know, it happened
even before the governing body was informed of the decision to withdraw their
function. Because of this cynical abuse, I was compelled to reconsider the
interpretation of sections 22 and 25 which has led me to the conclusion that
the Mikro interpretation was wrong.

______________________
F D J BRAND
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For appellant:
J I Du Toit SC

Instructed by:

Johan van der Wath Ingelyf, Pretoria

Schoeman Maree Ingelyf, Bloemfontein

For respondent:
B R Tokota SC

D T Skosana

Instructed by:

The State Attorney, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:

Status:
Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and
does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

* * *
The governing body of a school has the exclusive power to determine the language policy of
an existing school. That was the effect of a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal this
morning. It overruled a decision by a full court of the Pretoria High Court.

When the department of education had no accommodation in the Ermelo circuit for learners
to be taught in English the head of department withdrew the function of the governing body
of the Ermelo Hoërskool to determine the language policy of the school and appointed an
interim committee to change the policy from Afrikaans medium to parallel medium. The
Supreme Court of Appeal found that the head of department, in doing so, did not comply
with the principles of legality as his actions were not authorised in terms of the Schools Act
and violated the principles of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.