Pretoria High School for Girls: School Governing Body v Gauteng Department of Education and Others (2024-133414) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1179 (11 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Pretoria High School for Girls: School Governing Body v The Gauteng Department of Education and Others
Citation: [2025] ZAGPPHC 49
Date: 11 November 2025

Reportability

This case is of significance as it addresses fundamental principles of administrative law and the rights to access information held by public bodies, particularly concerning the interpretation and application of Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court and the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Although the case is not formally reportable, it raises issues that are likely to impact similar future cases, especially regarding the procedural aspects of judicial review and the entitlements of school governing bodies when serious allegations, such as racism, arise within educational institutions.

Cases Cited

• Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission 2018 (4) SA 1 (CC)
• Johannesburg City Council v The Administrator, Transvaal and Another 1970 (2) SA 89 (T)
• Murray and Others NNO v Ntombela and Others 2024 (4) SA 95 (SCA)
• Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC)
• Gcaba v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC)
• Technology Corporate Management (Pty) Ltd and Others v De Sousa and Others 2024 (5) SA 57 (SCA)
• Auditor-General South Africa v MEC for Economic Opportunities Western Cape and Another 2022 (5) SA 44 (SCA)
• Competition Commission of South Africa v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Related Matters 2020 (4) BCLR 429 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Gauteng School Education Act 6 of 1995
• Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 30A of the Uniform Rules of Court
• Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) sought access to an investigation report concerning allegations of racism against its students. The South Gauteng Department of Education, however, argued that the report did not form part of the record required under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court for a review application. The court was tasked with determining whether the School Governing Body (SGB) was entitled to the report and the implications of non-compliance with procedural rules in the context of ongoing litigation.

Key Issues

The principal legal issues addressed include: the definition and scope of "record of proceedings" as outlined in Rule 53(1)(b); the relationship between the rights to access information under PAIA and the procedures established by the Uniform Rules; and whether the failure to provide the report constituted non-compliance with the court's rules.

Held

The court ruled that the investigation report at the center of the dispute did not constitute a record of proceedings under Rule 53(1)(b). The SGB's remedies lay under PAIA rather than through the Uniform Rules, and it lacked the necessary standing to compel the release of the report through the court's review procedure.

THE FACTS

The High Court case arose from a complex dispute involving an investigation commissioned by the Gauteng Department of Education into allegations of racism among students at the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG). Following internal investigations clearing the students of wrongdoing, the Department initiated further inquiries that resulted in a universally contentious report. The SGB sought access to this report to prepare for a possible review of the Department's decision to investigate.

Despite the internal inquiry's conclusions and subsequent findings by the Thabo Mbeki Foundation also clearing the students, the SGB was denied access to the report, prompting its legal action. Throughout various stages in the case, disagreements about procedural compliance and the nature of the report emerged, leading to the submission of an interlocutory application grounded in Rule 30A to compel compliance regarding the report's availability.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions before the court were whether the investigation report constituted a record of proceedings as required by Rule 53(1)(b), and whether the SGB had failed to comply with relevant court rules in their application for access to that report. Furthermore, the court assessed the interplay between PAIA's provisions and the Uniform Rules in addressing access to information held by public bodies.

ANALYSIS

The court carefully analyzed the definitions contained within both PAIA and Rule 53, drawing a clear distinction between a "record of proceedings" and documents such as the report in question. The determination hinged on several judicial precedents, most notably the differing interpretations of Rule 53 in the Helen Suzman Foundation case, which provided critical insights into what constitutes record.

Central to the court's reasoning was the conclusion that the report represented not merely deliberation or procedural material, but the resultant decision itself. Hence, it could not fall within Rule 53’s parameters, which pertain exclusively to the documentary record comprising the proceedings leading up to a decision, rather than the decision itself.

The court also emphasized that litigants are not entitled to dual avenues of access concerning public documents; rather, they must follow established statutory remedies. The SGB's mixed approach—seeking the report through litigation while simultaneously invoking PAIA—was deemed problematic, leading to the court's dismissal of the application based on the invocation of Rule 30A.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the interlocutory application, holding that the respondents—essentially the Gauteng Department of Education—had not failed to comply with Rule 53(1)(b) because the requested report did not qualify as a record of proceedings that could have been reviewed under the stipulated rules. Costs were to be in the cause, reflecting the ongoing nature of the litigation and potential future disputes.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Several essential legal principles were derived from this judgment, notably:

1. The distinction between a report as an outcome of a decision-making process versus the records necessary for the review of that process is critical under Rule 53(1)(b).
2. Parties cannot selectively access public information using dual processes provided by different legislative frameworks; compliance must adhere to the specific procedural guidelines established under PAIA.
3. The court underlined the importance of clarity in litigants' claims regarding the nature of documents sought and their implications for procedural compliance under the Uniform Rules of Court.

This judgment demonstrates the courts' role in safeguarding procedural integrity while balancing the rights to information in the context of administrative actions.