Enye: Faith Chasisiwe v Crawford International Sandton Preparatory School and Another

The Applicant is the biological mother of two minor children aged 7 and 9, enrolled in Grades 2 and 3 at Crawford International Sandton Preparatory School (First Respondent) for the 2025 academic year. On 30 July 2025, the children were removed from school due to non-payment of school fees. The enrolment contracts had been terminated on 6 June 2025. The school had sent repeated warnings about non-payment consequences dating back to February 2025. The Applicant approached her attorneys on 31 July 2025 but only launched the urgent application on 25 August 2025, citing financial constraints as the reason for the delay. The Second Respondent was erroneously cited as she was principal of the pre-primary section, not the current school. The Applicant withdrew the application against the Second Respondent during the hearing.

• Whether the application met the threshold for urgency under Uniform Rule 6(12)
• Whether the Applicant provided satisfactory explanation for the delay in launching proceedings
• Whether the urgency was self-created by the Applicant's inaction
• Whether the Applicant could obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course
• Whether the implication of children's rights under section 28(2) of the Constitution rendered the matter urgent per se

1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency. 2. Each party shall pay their own costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) An applicant seeking to invoke the urgent court procedure under Rule 6(12) bears the onus to establish both urgency and that substantial redress cannot be obtained in the ordinary course; (2) Urgency that is self-created through a party's own inaction or delay will not meet the threshold for urgent relief; (3) Constitutional rights involving children under section 28(2) do not automatically confer urgency on an application - urgency must still be assessed contextually and demonstrated on the facts; (4) A delay of nearly one month between becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the application and launching proceedings, without satisfactory explanation, is unreasonable and fatal to a claim of urgency; (5) The availability of alternative remedies (such as public schooling) is relevant to the assessment of whether an applicant will obtain substantial redress in due course.

The court made non-binding observations regarding costs. While acknowledging that the First Respondent succeeded on the issue of urgency (which would ordinarily attract a costs order), the court noted that where a matter implicates the rights of minor children and the applicant is under financial strain, a punitive costs order may not be warranted. The court exercised its discretion to order each party to bear their own costs, demonstrating judicial sensitivity to the vulnerability of children and financially constrained litigants, even where such parties are unsuccessful on the procedural issue before the court. This reflects a broader principle of access to justice considerations tempering the usual rule that costs follow the result.

This case reinforces important principles regarding urgent applications in South African law: (1) urgency must be properly established and explained, not merely asserted; (2) self-created urgency due to a party's own inaction will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 6(12); (3) the involvement of children's rights under section 28(2) of the Constitution does not automatically render a matter urgent - urgency must still be assessed contextually; (4) financial constraints, while unfortunate, do not excuse unexplained delays in instituting proceedings; (5) the availability of alternative remedies is a relevant consideration in assessing urgency; and (6) courts retain discretion to deviate from the usual costs-follow-the-result principle where matters involve vulnerable parties such as children and financially constrained litigants. The judgment demonstrates the court's willingness to balance procedural fairness with substantive considerations affecting minors.