Mlahlwa v Life Healthcare East London Learning Centre

The applicant, a 37-year-old trainee nurse, was enrolled by the respondent for a three-year diploma in nursing. On 18 October 2024, the respondent removed the applicant's name from the enrolled students group. The applicant sought urgent relief as she was about to write examinations on 28 October 2024. It transpired that the applicant's enrolment was erroneous as she did not have the minimum requirements for admission under South African Nursing Council (SANC) regulations - she had failed her matriculation examinations on two occasions (2006 and 2019), and a matriculation certificate was a prerequisite for the diploma. On 16 October 2024, the parties had entered into a written settlement agreement terminating the applicant's enrolment. The applicant failed to disclose this settlement agreement in her founding affidavit. The respondent also made an offer to the applicant to reimburse tuition fees, re-enrol her upon completion of her National Senior Certificate, and reimburse travel, accommodation and textbook expenses.

• Whether a settlement agreement concluded between the parties was binding and enforceable
• Whether the respondent had the authority to terminate the applicant's admission for failing to meet minimum prerequisite requirements
• Whether the matter was distinguishable from Philasanda Gungqa v Lilitha College of Nursing
• Whether there was non-joinder of the South African Nursing Council
• Whether the applicant could enforce the original enrolment contract despite not meeting regulatory requirements

The application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on scale B as contemplated by rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

A settlement agreement validly concluded between parties is binding and enforceable. A private educational institution has the authority to terminate a student's admission where the student does not meet mandatory regulatory prerequisites for enrolment, even where the initial enrolment was made in error. The failure of an applicant to disclose the existence of a settlement agreement in founding papers is fatal to an application seeking relief inconsistent with that agreement. Where regulatory requirements prescribed by statute (such as SANC regulations) mandate minimum qualifications for admission to professional courses, neither the educational institution nor the courts can permit students who do not meet those requirements to continue with or complete such courses.

The court noted with approval that the respondent's offer to the applicant was "fair and reasonable" and went beyond what could be considered enforceable damages. The court observed that the offer was made to prevent the unnecessary incurring of exorbitant legal costs. The court also noted that the applicant was a 37-year-old female and not a young student, suggesting this was relevant to assessing whether she entered into the settlement agreement freely and with understanding. The court expressed the view that it was commendable that the respondent was committed to ensuring strict compliance with admission policies, echoing Smith J's comments in the Gungqa case.

This case clarifies the enforceability of settlement agreements in education disputes and confirms that private educational institutions have the authority to terminate admissions where students do not meet mandatory regulatory prerequisites, even if the initial enrolment was erroneous. It distinguishes between the powers of organs of state in making administrative decisions and private parties entering into contractual arrangements. The case also emphasizes that courts will uphold settlement agreements voluntarily entered into by adult parties, particularly where the institution has acknowledged its error and made fair offers to remedy the situation.