Molatoli v Adv Tech Group and Others (061967-2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1249 (20 November 2025)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court ruled that the school's decision to prevent the minor from taking the cycle test was based on academic policy, a contractual matter, and thus not an administrative action under PAJA. This led to the dismissal of the application for review and set aside of the decision.
• The court determined that the applicant's attempt to amend the application from a PAJA-based claim to a common law claim was not properly executed under Rule 28, rendering the amendment irregular and ineffective. The applicant's reliance on Rule 6(12) for condonation was invalidated after the application was struck for lack of urgency.
• The court dismissed the point in limine regarding material misjoinder, finding the applicant's representation of the minor child was valid, and the mother's involvement did not prejudice her rights. The minor child's academic policy dispute was deemed sufficient for the applicant's participation.

Holdings

• The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney and client scale. This was justified due to the lack of urgency in the original application and the failure to properly pursue the amendment to the relief claim.
• The court dismissed the second respondent's point in limine regarding the non-joinder of the minor child and his mother. The applicant, as the minor's biological father, was deemed sufficient to represent his interests, and the mother's involvement was not prejudicial.
• The court upheld the second respondent's point in limine that the relief claimed under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) is incompetent, as the school's decision to bar the minor child from the cycle test was based on academic policy and contractual rights, not an administrative action. The application was dismissed accordingly.

Remedies

• The applicant is to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.
• The application is dismissed as the relief claimed under PAJA was found to be incompetent and the amendment was not effected.

Legal Principles

• The court held that the school's decision to bar the minor child from taking the cycle test was not an administrative action under PAJA, as it stemmed from academic policy and contractual obligations rather than public power or function. This rendered judicial review under PAJA inapplicable.
• The court emphasized that the applicant's failure to comply with Rule 28 for amending pleadings rendered the amendment irregular. Reliance on Rule 6(12) for condoning non-compliance was invalid after the application was struck for lack of urgency.
• The applicant, a legally qualified individual, was ordered to pay costs on the attorney and client scale due to his failure to properly amend pleadings and the mooting of the application after it was struck for lack of urgency.

Precedent Name

• AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others
• Moko v Acting Principal, Malusi Secondary School and Others

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

Cited Statute

• Uniform Rules of Court
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
• Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Being away on holiday, whilst having been fully made aware of the academic roster and school policies, can never be regarded as an extenuating circumstance, capable of being explained in an affidavit to warrant a principal's waiver.
• The decision not to allow the minor child to take the cycle test was not an administrative action as defined in PAJA. The decision was not an exercise in public power, nor was it the performance of a public function. Instead, the decision stems from the school's academic policy, which forms part of the agreement under which the minor child was enrolled for the 2025 academic year.
• In light of all of the above, the amendment sought was not effected, and the applicant is bound by his election to place reliance on PAJA.

Damages / Relief Type