A private school in South Africa cannot simply exclude a learner because a parent has fallen behind on fees. Wright Rose-Innes, the law firm quoted by BusinessTech, says the Constitutional Court has established that “contractual rights cannot be exercised in isolation from the Constitution”. Schools must follow their enrolment agreement, give parents notice and a chance to address the arrears, and weigh what exclusion would do to the child.
## What the law says
Section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution gives everyone the right to a basic education. For public schools the position is spelt out by the South African Schools Act, which prohibits action against a learner for non-payment, including suspension from class or withholding a school report. Private schools are different: they run on commercial contracts with parents, and the Act’s prohibition does not apply to them in the same way, according to a Legalwise explainer. A private school may suspend a learner over unpaid fees only where its agreement allows it, and only after reasonable procedures such as written warning and consideration of the family’s circumstances.
The parent’s obligation to pay does not go away. Wright Rose-Innes says the enrolment agreement creates a legally enforceable financial obligation, and a school may pursue arrears through the courts. What it may not do is hold the child’s schooling over the parent as a bargaining chip.
## The Pridwin precedent
The key authority is the Constitutional Court’s judgment in AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others, delivered on 17 June 2020 by Justice Leona Theron, as SABC News reported. It is catalogued as [2020] ZACC 12, case number CCT 294-18.
That case was not about unpaid fees. The school had ended its contract with the parents of two young boys after a dispute, relying on a clause allowing termination for any reason. The parents lost in the High Court in 2017 and the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2018 before succeeding in the Constitutional Court. The court held that the termination was constitutionally invalid because the school had not considered the children’s best interests or heard their views. In Justice Theron’s words, Pridwin “has not demonstrated that there was appropriate justification, for summarily limiting a right to basic education enjoyed by the two children.”
The judgment does not stop private schools from enforcing valid contracts. It requires substantive and procedural fairness when a child’s schooling is cut off: a hearing, and thought given to the child’s rights. A private school, as Legalwise puts it, should not unreasonably impair the basic education it provides. Lawyers apply the same reasoning to exclusions over fees, which is the argument Wright Rose-Innes makes.
## A Johannesburg case in June 2026
The principle was tested this year. Acting judge Apfeswaho Vele in the Johannesburg High Court ordered a private school to readmit two Grade 12 learners who had been barred from class over outstanding fees, TimesLIVE reported. Three children in the family had been excluded, the third in Grade 4. Their mother, represented by Section27, brought an urgent application arguing that a school could pursue the debt without shutting children out of their education.
The court gave an interim order. The school had to provide the examination registration costs within 48 hours and register the learners for the 2026 IEB examinations, and the IEB was ordered to accept the registrations even though the deadlines had passed. The learners could attend classes and sit exams while the fee dispute continues. No costs were awarded.
According to the Daily Dispatch, the school’s position was that it had terminated the enrolment contract in October 2025, so the pupils were not eligible for 2026 enrolment or exam registration. Section27 replied that the children had been welcomed, timetabled and assessed all year, arguing that this pointed to the learners having been enrolled.
## What schools should have in their contracts
For an operator running a school as a small business, the practical points from Wright Rose-Innes are that a fee default does not carry an automatic right to exclude, that the notice steps in the agreement must actually be followed, and that parents should get a reasonable window, such as a payment plan, before any exclusion. Parents who are struggling should raise it early. A negotiated payment arrangement made before a formal notice is issued is the route the firm recommends.
More on education and regulation is filed under regulatory and policy news and SME and entrepreneurship.
