30 April 2026
Statement: North West High Court rules in favour of the best interests of the child in Swartruggens school dispute, following intervention of the Equal Education Law Centre
The Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) welcomes the judgment delivered by the North West High Court on Wednesday, 08 April 2026, in respect of the urgent application in the Swartruggens Gekombineerde Skool v North West Education Department & Others matter. This judgment affirms the fundamental importance of child participation, particularly in matters and decisions that directly affect children. It underscores that decisions with implications for children and learners’ right to access basic education must meaningfully take into account the voices, experiences, and best interests of the children concerned.
The EELC was admitted in the matter as a friend of the court in an urgent matter brought by the School Governing Body (SGB) of Swartruggens Gekombineerde Skool, an Afrikaans-medium school. The application was brought against the North West Department of Education (NWDoE), as well as the 78 English-medium learners placed at their school and their parents or guardians.
The dispute arose after the NWDoE placed the English-medium learners at the school. The SGB challenged the decision, seeking their removal. It argued that their continued placement would result in serious harm, including overcrowding, unsafe learning conditions, and a decline in the quality of education. The SGB further contended that the decision by the Head of Department (HOD) undermined its statutory powers.
EELC raised serious concerns about the SGB’s failure to meaningfully include the 78 learners and their parents or guardians in the proceedings, despite citing them as parties. We further opposed the relief sought by the SGB, which proposed removing the learners from their current school to Swartruggens Intermediate, now a primary school. The EELC submitted that a just and equitable decision, in the best interests of all affected learners, could not be made without hearing their voices and understanding the full impact such a decision would have on their education and on their families. Having heard EELC’s concerns about the failure to properly include the affected learners and their families, the court granted an order permitting EELC to consult them directly. This engagement informed the comprehensive report subsequently filed by the EELC.
Our report revealed that most families had only become aware of the proceedings through the EELC’s intervention, despite being cited as parties to the matter, and that they had not been meaningfully engaged. Based on input received from parents, guardians, and learners, EELC recommended that the 78 learners remain at the school, that the NWDE be compelled to address the safety and infrastructure deficiencies as a matter of urgency, and that no removal order should be granted without evidence that the receiving school could appropriately accommodate the learners.
The court made its final decision after considering the NWDoE’s and SGB’s positions alongside EELC’s report and recommendations. It ordered that the 78 learners remain in school and that the NWDoE take immediate steps to address the identified safety and infrastructure concerns. The Court also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the parents and guardians of the affected learners are properly notified and meaningfully included in decisions affecting their children’s education.
In its reasoning, the Court found that the appropriate remedy was not the removal of the learners, but rather the urgent addressing of the conditions at the school in a manner that minimises disruption to their education and family life. It further noted that no evidence had been placed before it demonstrating that the proposed receiving school was able to adequately accommodate the learners.
The EELC welcomes the outcome, which ensured that the experiences and perspectives of the affected learners were placed before the Court and, significantly, informed its decision. The judgment reflects a justice system guided by the best interests of children, one that protects the rights, dignity, and educational stability of all the learners involved, and affirms the importance of children being meaningfully heard in decisions that affect their education.
At the heart of this case are children whose education and future opportunities depend on decisions of this nature. Their best interests must remain the central consideration in resolving disputes of this kind.
This case also underscores the importance of ensuring that children’s voices are properly heard before the Court in all matters affecting them and that such participation should not depend on the intervention of an amicus in future matters.
[END]
To arrange a media interview, contact:
Papama Mabotshwa | Media and Communications Intern | papama@eelawcentre.org.za or 062 520 1818
