Benji

Assignment 2

Read the case below which is drawn from an article by Court Reporter from The Zimbabwe Herald of 12 October 2007 and answer the questions that follow:

You can’t expel pupils over dreadlocks: Zimbabwe Herald 12 October 2007

Court Reporter

In a landmark ruling, dreadlocked eight-year-old Glen Norah boy, Farai Benjamin Dzvova, has won a constitutional case prohibiting school authorities from expelling him because of his hairstyle. Dzova – popularly known as Benji – was expelled from Ruvheneko Primary School a few days after he started Grade One in January last year, prompting his father Mr. Collin Dzvova to challenge the expulsion at the High Court.

In this case, Mr. Dzvova sued the Minister of Education, Sports and Culture Cde. Aeneas Chigwedere, Ruvheneko Primary School and the headmaster who was only referred to as Mr. Nyahunye. The High Court, however, granted the boy interim relief to go back to school pending the determination of his case by the Supreme Court after his father raised a constitutional point.

Through his lawyer Mr. Zvikomborero Chadambuka, Mr. Dzvova argued that his son’s expulsion from school infringed on the boy’s human rights as enshrined in the country’s Constitution. Justice Misheck Cheda heard the case this week with Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku and Justice Wilson Sandura, Vernanda Ziyambi and Luke Malaba.They unanimously agreed that the attempt by the school contravened not only the Constitution of Zimbabwe, but also certain provisions of the Education Act which provide for children’s fundamental rights to education in Zimbabwe.

Justice Cheda – who handed the judgment which was made available on Wednesday - declared that the expulsion of Rastafarians from school on the basis of their expression of their religious beliefs through their hairstyles breached Section 19 and 23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. “… The respondents be and hereby compelled to allow the minor Farai Benjamin Dzvova to enter upon the second respondent school for the purposes of education,” said Justice Cheda in the judgment. “The respondents are hereby interdicted from in any way negatively interfering with the minor… education, more particular in that the respondents be and hereby barred from separating him from his classmates; otherwise detaining… in solitary or the sole company of adults in any other way discriminating against…. on the basis of his hairstyle or his religious belief.”

In March 2005, the boy enrolled for Grade Zero at the school in the line with the new education policy, which are required that children’s pre-schools be attached to primary schools. The boy graduated from the pre-school system and was enrolled in primary school. His parents paid fees and bought all necessary books and stationery.

Mr Dzvova said while in pre-school, the boy’s hair was never cut and was kept in dreadlocks. The school authorities argued that in terms of the Education Act, the minister had powers to make regulations which provide for discipline in schools and the exercise of the disciplinary powers over pupils. These include powers to administer corporal punishment and suspension and expulsion of pupils in respect of their attendance and conduct in schools.

However, in determining the question of whether the headmaster was authorized through the Act to make rules, Justice Cheda found that the Education Act did not authorize the minister to give headmasters powers to make regulations to set conditions of admission of pupils to school. “I do not consider that asking the pupil to confirm to a standard of discipline would include an aspect that infringes on a pupil’s manifestation of his religion,” said Justice Cheda. The judge also noted that there was no suggestion by the respondents that keeping dreadlocks was an act of discipline.

“If the headmaster believed that he had authority to make such rules, then he was wrong,” he said. “The minister did not make regulations concerning the type of hair to be kept by pupils, neither did he delegate the making of regulations on that subject matter to the headmaster.”

Question:

With reference to Benji’s case discuss the following concepts:

[a] Contractual capacity of a minor.

[b] The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe as a court of first instance.

[c] Delegated/subsidiary authority.

Notes:

  • Your presentation should be about 500 [five hundred] words.
  • You may find the following useful:
  • The Education Act [Chap 25:04] especially Sect 4 on children’s fundamental rights to education in Zimbabwe
  • Sect10 on children’s entitlement to enrolment at a Government schools nearest to him
  • Sect 69 on regulations the Minister may make.
  • The Constitution especially
  • Sect 19 on freedom of conscience
  • Sect 23 on discrimination
  • Sect 24 on enforcement of protective provisions given to the Supreme Court and reference to the High Court in that section.

In general, without reading all sections of the Acts/Constitution, a quick perusal of the contents page may prove helpful.

  • This assignment should be done in groups of 10 students and the whole paper should be about 500 words.
  • Credit will be given for good organisation of content and ideas as well as good expression and orderly presentation.
  • Font 12 and spacing of 1½.
  • Submission Dates:
  • Visiting11 March 2008
  • ConventionalTBA
  • Parallel TBA

S. Mlambo 30 March 2008.

E:\All Folders 16 Oct 2007 Ex Back up\Business Law BM 105 Jan 2008\Assignments&Tutorials December 2006\BM 105 Assignments Semester 1 of 2008.doc Page 1 of 3