The School Governing Body Grey College, Bloemfontein v Scheepers and Another

Grey College in Bloemfontein is a public school for boys. Mr Deon Scheepers was appointed as principal in January 2013 on the recommendation of the School Governing Body (SGB) to the Head of Department of the Free State Department of Education. On 15 May 2018, at a special meeting, the SGB resolved to withdraw all "delegated SGB powers" from Mr Scheepers and appointed Mr Jurie Geldenhuys as interim school manager to manage all school activities except teaching and learning. Mr Scheepers was not given prior notice of the specific powers to be withdrawn and was confronted at the meeting with a list of complaints about his performance. He requested a postponement to prepare a response, which was refused. Fourteen of seventeen SGB members voted to withdraw his functions. Mr Scheepers approached the High Court to review and set aside the SGB's decision. The South African Teachers' Union (SAOU) intervened in support of Mr Scheepers.

• Whether the SGB had statutory authority under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 to withdraw the principal's statutory powers, functions and duties
• Whether the principal's powers and functions were delegated by the SGB or derived directly from statute
• Whether the SGB's decision constituted administrative action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
• Whether the process followed by the SGB was procedurally fair
• Whether the SAOU had standing to intervene and seek a declaratory order
• The proper distinction between the governance function of a school governing body and the professional management function of a school principal

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The High Court's order reviewing and setting aside the SGB's decision was upheld, as was the declaratory order granted in favor of the SAOU.

A school governing body cannot lawfully withdraw or revoke a school principal's statutory powers, functions and duties which are conferred directly by sections 16(3) and 16A of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. The principal exercises professional management of the school under the authority of the Head of Department, not pursuant to delegation by the governing body. The governing body's role is governance (legislative/policy-making), while the principal's role is professional management (executive/day-to-day administration). These are distinct but complementary functions established by statute. The principal's management functions are not limited to academic matters but extend to all aspects of day-to-day school operations including management of staff, resources, discipline, communication and liaison. Any decision by an SGB to strip a principal of these statutory functions is ultra vires and unlawful.

The Court made several important observations: (1) It noted that while the relationship between the SGB chairperson and the principal had broken down, if there were genuine grounds for disciplinary action against the principal, the proper route would be through formal disciplinary procedures, not the stratagem adopted by the SGB. (2) The Court emphasized that the school's best interests are not served by protracted litigation and ongoing tensions, and urged all parties to engage in genuine mediation with independent facilitators, putting learners' interests first. (3) The Court observed that this conflict might be part of a broader "turf war" between organizations (FEDSAS and SAOU) with divergent interests, but emphasized that the legislation must serve as a beacon and all role players must focus on the real and urgent business of realizing the right to education. (4) The Court noted that FEDSAS, admitted as amicus curiae, contributed very little to the proceedings and its attempt at mediation was "predictably doomed to fail" given it is an organization representing school governing bodies. (5) The Court noted that the message to all role players is simply: "Put the learners first."

This case provides definitive guidance on the respective roles and powers of school governing bodies and school principals under the South African Schools Act. It is significant for establishing that: (1) principals derive their professional management powers directly from statute, not from delegation by the SGB; (2) there is a clear constitutional and statutory distinction between governance (legislative function of the SGB) and professional management (executive function of the principal); (3) a principal's management role extends beyond purely academic matters to include management of all staff, equipment, discipline, communication, and day-to-day operations of the school; (4) an SGB cannot unilaterally strip a principal of statutory functions; and (5) public schools operate on a partnership model between the state, parents, and community, with carefully calibrated checks and balances that must be respected. The judgment reinforces the transformative objectives of the Schools Act in creating a democratic and equitable education system, and emphasizes that all role players must understand their distinct but interrelated functions to put learners' interests first.