In a recent High Court judgment, the Court reviewed and set aside various disciplinary actions taken by a public school against two grade 10 students for vaping in breach of the school’s code of conduct. The case, A P N.O. v Oakdale Agricultural High School (Case No. 25674/2024), highlights potential procedural and substantive pitfalls in school disciplinary processes.
While the decision turned on its specific facts, it offers broader guidance for educators, school governing bodies (SGBs), and parents navigating South Africa’s education regulatory landscape.
An overview of the case
The two students in question were on scholarships at Oakdale Agricultural High School, a public boarding school in Riversdale, Western Cape. Both students had previously been suspended from the school’s hostel for six weeks after having been involved in a prior vaping incident in November 2023. In August 2024, they were caught vaping for a second time – constituting serious misconduct under the school’s code of conduct.
The school held a disciplinary hearing and, on 27 August 2024, resolved to expel both students from the hostel. However, by resolving to expel the students, the SGB failed to comply with the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (Schools Act), which provides that a SGB may only recommend to the Head of the relevant Provincial Education Department that a student be expelled from a public school or from its hostel. Ultimately, the power to decide to expel a student is vested in the Head of Department, and not the SGB.
The students’ parents raised various concerns with the school. The school then seemingly realised that it had not conducted the disciplinary hearing in accordance with the Schools Act. The school readmitted the students in October 2024, but shortly thereafter convened a second hearing in respect of the same incident. This time, it imposed sanctions short of expulsion on the two students, including withdrawing their students’ scholarships, banning them from participation in sports events until the end of the second term of 2025, and prohibiting them from occupying leadership roles.
The parents of both students challenged the legality of both disciplinary hearings and the ensuing disciplinary sanctions in the High Court, arguing that the actions taken against the students were unlawful, unfair, and disproportionate. The Court agreed, setting aside both sets of disciplinary hearings.
Why did the Court rule against the school?
The judgment emphasises that while schools have authority to discipline students, they must follow the letter of the law when doing so to ensure procedural fairness. In doing so, the Court held that decisions of public schools to institute and carry out disciplinary action against students amount to ‘administrative action’ that is reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) (which was conceded by the school).
A breakdown of the key findings is as follows.
- Failure to follow expulsion procedures (the first hearing
In terms of section 9 of the Schools Act, SGBs can only recommend expulsion from a hostel or school, which the Head of Department is required to confirm. In this case, the school exceeded its powers by enforcing expulsion itself, without any referral to the Head of Department. Additionally, by doing so the school effectively deprived the two students of their right to appeal against the expulsion decision to the Provincial Minister, as contemplated in the relevant regulations.
The first disciplinary hearing, and the resultant sanction of expulsion from the hostel, were therefore found to be invalid and unlawful.
- Functus officio (the second hearing)
The Court further found that that once the school had concluded the first hearing and imposed the sanction of expulsion, it was functus officio (in other words, it had exhausted its power to decide the matter), rendering the second rehearing of the same incident unlawful.
In simple terms, the school could not simply ‘retry’ the students after it had it realised its initial error. The school could only do so if it had obtained a court order setting aside the initial disciplinary proceedings, which it had not done.
- Disproportionate punishments
While acknowledging the harm caused by vaping to students, which amounted to a serious offence in terms of the school’s code of conduct, the Court found that the sanctions imposed on the students was disproportionate: the permanent scholarship withdrawal, leadership bans, and extended exclusions from sports and social events served to stigmatise the students rather than performing a deterring and reforming function.
The Court therefore reviewed and set aside both sets of hearings and sanctions, without remitting the matter back to the school for reconsideration, thus effectively bringing the matter to finality.
What does this mean for the education sector and SGBs?
This judgment reinforces the importance of following and abiding by the procedures set out in the Schools Act when disciplining students, as well as the importance of balancing school rules with the rights and interests of students. In this regard, SGBs need to ensure that any disciplinary action impacting students is compliant with not only with educational legislation, such as the Schools Act, but also with the requirements of fair administrative action under PAJA, such as reasonableness and proportionality.
Moreover, any decisions following a process that is non-compliant with these procedures and requirements is, at least for public schools, susceptible to review under PAJA.
In this regard, A P N.O. v Oakdale serves as a cautionary tale: while robust discipline is essential in schools, it must be lawful, fair, and student-centred. For schools, this highlights the importance of regularly reviewing their policies to ensure compliance and proportionality.
