The High court has ordered the University of Fort Hare to reconsider its decision to deny a student from graduating after he failed to submit course work on time.
Mbali Silimela, a final year student in the education faculty at the university required a final mark in a compulsory module to graduate. Part of the module required him to upload certain media to the internet, but Silimela claims technical issues at the time prevented him from submitting the work by the deadline.
The faculty accepted his explanation and gave him a final mark of 57%. However, the faculty had to explain to the university’s senate why — despite the late submission — Silimela should pass the module and graduate.
— The course itself is being phased out by the university, so there is also no chance of Silimela taking it again.
The university was phasing out the course, meaning Silimela would not be able to repeat it.
Despite the education faculty’s pleas the university refused to grant Silimela a confirmation letter that is required for graduation.
After numerous attempts to engage with the university, Silimela brought the matter before the High Court in Bhisho, representing himself.
Judge Belinda Hartle found the university’s attitude to be “unyielding”, noting that the court “remains in the dark” as to various procedures and reasons for the university’s decision.
Assessing the strong recommendation letter from the education faculty that Silimela be allowed graduate, Hartle remarked: “It is hard to fathom from the limited information placed before the court by the university why these representations in respect of [Silimela] did not succeed.”
The judge said she could not find “any negative reason” that was offered to the Senate to take a stance “against condoning [Silimela’s] breach and accepting his late corrected mark.”
In one of the minutes of meetings the university did provide to the court, Hartle notes the university’s oppositional attitude was because any student that filed coursework late “had not followed the rules”. Hartle disagreed, saying “surely [that] was the reason in the first place for the referral to the committees to ascertain whether the complained of infractions could be condoned”.
Hartle also viewed the university’s arguments as “ironic and opportunistic” when it argued that the decision wasn’t final — and thus not reviewable by a court — and yet also said the official marking system had closed. That meant, Hartle said, "[the] condoned mark can in effect never be approved”.
The university was ordered to properly make a decision in response to the faculty’s recommendation and provide full reasons should it refuse the recommendation. Hartle found that there was “enormous prejudice” to Silimela and the decision must be made in five days.
The university also was ordered to pay Silimela’s legal costs.
moosat@businesslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.