Reinstate PhD student or face jail time, judge warns varsity officials

After ignoring a court order for more than a year which made it clear that the University of Limpopo had to reinstate a doctoral student and appoint external assessors for his thesis, the university and two of its senior officials were held in contempt of court.

The Polokwane High Court voiced its dissatisfaction that a June 2024 order was simply ignored, leaving doctoral student Dickiel Kusainda out in the cold.

The court recently not only ordered that the university was in contempt, but also that Vice Chancellor Professor Nehemia Mahlo Mokgalong and Registrar Kwena Masha must take direct responsibility for ensuring compliance.

Acting Judge S du Plessis awarded a punitive costs order against the university and ordered that it had to immediately re-enrol Kusainda so that he could complete his doctorate. If they did not comply within a few days, the court warned that the senior officials could face a hefty fine or, alternatively, face a three-month stint in jail for contempt of court.

After the court ruled last year that the university had to come to Kusainda’s aid so that he could complete his doctorate, the university tried, in vain, to appeal this order before the high court. Unsuccessful in that bid, it turned to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

This move suspended last year’s order, but the university subsequently withdrew its appeal bid. Judge Du Plessis commented that this move caused the order to become operative again. Yet, the university still ignored the order.

Judge du Plessis referred to a previous Constitutional Court case which dealt with contempt of court, in which it said the Constitution commands that institutions and people had to abide by court rulings. If they do not, the ConCourt stated, it would render the judicial authority a mere mockery.

It was argued on behalf of the university that it has “started the process of obeying” the order. But the judge noted that the order does not make any provision for a “process.” The judge also questioned that, more than a year later, senior management was “still in the process of obeying”.

“An institution such as the first respondent (the university) can only perform its administrative and legal acts through the agency of its human officials,” the judge said in pointing out that the senior officials are responsible for the administration of the university.

They in turn tried to excuse their conduct by arguing that they relied on legal advice. But the judge said this does not constitute a defence to a charge of contempt of court, unless they can demonstrate the absence of wilfulness or that they acted in bad faith.

The court found that the university and its senior officials deliberately refused to comply with last year’s order. This, the judge said, has resulted in the student’s rights continuing to be violated and has caused him serious prejudice. It was pointed out that the Constitution granted him the right to further his studies.

The university’s conduct, including delaying tactics and not communicating the outcome of internal meetings with the student, was deliberate and prejudicial, the court concluded.

Cape Times