Ms Yolanda Dyantyi, a final-year BA student at Rhodes University, participated in student protests during April 2016 relating to allegations of sexual violence and a perceived rape culture at the university. During the protests, three male students were forcibly removed from residences and detained, and allegations of assault and defamation arose. Nearly a year later, in March 2017, the university instituted disciplinary proceedings against Ms Dyantyi on charges of kidnapping, insubordination, assault and defamation. The inquiry was chaired by a proctor appointed under the university’s Student Disciplinary Code. Ms Dyantyi was represented pro bono by two counsel and an attorney. After the hearing had run for 12 days and exceeded 700 pages of transcript, the proctor set down continuation dates when Ms Dyantyi’s counsel were unavailable, despite their prior commitments and despite alternative dates being available. A formal application for postponement was refused without reasons. As a result, Ms Dyantyi and her legal team withdrew from further participation. The proctor subsequently found her guilty on all charges and permanently excluded her from the university. Ms Dyantyi sought review in the High Court, which dismissed the application, but granted leave to appeal on procedural fairness. The Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether the refusal to postpone rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair under PAJA.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The decisions convicting Ms Dyantyi and permanently excluding her from Rhodes University were reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to Rhodes University for reconsideration, on condition that any continuation of the disciplinary inquiry must take place before a different proctor. Rhodes University was ordered to pay Ms Dyantyi’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.
This case affirms that disciplinary proceedings at public universities constitute administrative action subject to PAJA. It clarifies that while there is no automatic right to specific legal representation, procedural fairness may require accommodation of a particular representative in exceptional circumstances, especially where proceedings are complex and consequences severe. The judgment reinforces a context-sensitive approach to procedural fairness and strengthens protections for students facing serious disciplinary sanctions.