Westwood parents not school operators - CoA

Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday November 3, 2015 14:16

The Court of Appeal (CoA) recently denied the parents any rights after seeking a declaratory order for their rights as legal members of the school, in accordance with Articles of Association adopted in 1988 by the school. The parents, who have been embroiled in a legal battle with the school management, argued that the school unilaterally changed its constitution with the result that they no longer have a say in its running and have no votes at Annual General Meetings (AGMs).

The appeal followed a High Court judgement by Justice Abednico Tafa, who had ruled in favour of the school.

Justice John Foxcroft said the declaration sought by parents could not be made, as it was not for the court to amend the school constitution. He explained that it was not even possible to order the school to convene an extraordinary AGM to review the constitution.

“That is a matter for the school and we cannot force them to review their constitution, as they have to run the school the way they feel is suitable,” he said.

Foxcroft said as indicated by the school that number of bye-laws have been drafted under the new constitution and intended to improve the management of the school, more regular parents meetings should also be included. He emphasised that the provision of more information to parents and in particular the possibility of more meetings would help to stop the infighting.

“It seems undesirable that the only official sanctioned meeting of the parent body occurs only every second year after the first nominations.

Perhaps the proposed bye-laws will enable more parent participation than this given the fact that they have been deprived of attending and participating at the AGM’s,” he said.

He however noted that it remains possible for the school to reconsider the wisdom of preventing any parent participation at the AGM and that the constitution could be amended by a special resolution.

On the issue of costs the judge spared the parents from paying saying they could not be penalised because they had raised issues intended to protect the interests of children at the school.

Foxcroft explained that there will be no costs either on the appeal or in the High Court simply because the matter was of public importance.

“Given the public importance of this matter and the fact that the parents were initially successful in having the school’s conduct policy suspended, it is a case where no costs award ought to be made,” he explained.