Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
A Marondera High School pupil who was last month kicked out of school for allowing a male student into the staff quarters has won a High Court challenge to her expulsion. The girl was expelled from the school as punishment for alleged misdemeanour.

She was residing with her aunt, Ms Winnet Taero, in her private allocated residence in the school courtyard. Ms Taero is a teacher at the school. The teenager, currently in her fourth form, is scheduled to sit for Ordinary Level examinations from October 21 to November 12 this year.

She sat for Food and Nutrition Planning examinations mid-last month before she was expelled. Through her lawyer, Ms Nyasha Timba of Kantor and Immerman law practice, Ms Taero challenged the authorities for enacting a “grossly unfair punishment” on her niece without following procedures.

Justice Erica Ndewere, who presided over the urgent chamber application, granted a provisional order blocking the expulsion pending finalisation of the matter.

“Pending the confirmation or discharge of this provisional order, applicant is granted the following relief – that the minor child . . . be allowed to attend class and to sit and write her examinations without hindrance or undue interference,” ruled Justice Ndewere.

In her court proceedings, Ms Taero had cited Marondera High School, Primary and Secondary Education Minister Dr Lazarus Dokora and provincial education director Mr P. Chihota as respondents.

She accused the school authorities of taking action that infringed on the constitutional rights of the minor.

To bolster her case, Ms Taero alluded to several provisions of the Constitution that deal with children’s rights, among them the right to education and the enjoyment of parental care.

She also referred the Ministry of Education Circular No. P35 of 1999 in which the rights of girls are entrenched.

The circular states that a girl who falls pregnant during her tenure at school is protected in furtherance of her right to education and is allowed to complete her studies at the school.

Ms Taero submitted that the circumstances surrounding her niece’s case were distinguishable and the school authority’s decision turned a blind eye to the spirit of the regulations.

“It is already drastic enough a decision to exclude her from attending lessons at the school in the eleventh hour towards her final examinations.

“In addition, evicting her from home and from my parental care is excessive and clearly unlawful.”

Ms Taero argued the misdemeanour her niece was accused of took place in a private house allocated to her and not within the students’ housing.

“The decision of the first respondent has the added effect of being unnecessarily invasive of my right to privacy and freedom of association, which rights cannot be lightly interfered with,” she stated in her founding affidavit.

“For all intents and purposes, this is the minor’s home. Ejecting her from this home at this critical time of her schooling is not in the best interest as envisaged by the Constitution.”

Ms Taero argued that there was no breach of school rules by her niece, but by the male student who went out of bounds.

The boy has since been expelled.

The school authority’s decision to evict the girl, she argued, was unlawful since this was done without a court order.

She also accused the school authorities of causing the minor trauma and suffering to an extent that her removal from the environment she had acclimatised to “would cause her untoward psychological suffering which might derail her examination preparations and cause her to lose academic focus”.

“While I do not condone anything untoward by my niece and while I respect the school, I believe the minor needs my stricter monitoring and supervision rather than a total banishment into unknown lands,” she said.

“I have taken the necessary corrective and rehabilitative steps to ensure that she does not flout any other rules in future and I believe in the interim this suffices to assuage any fears the school might have.”

Ms Taero said it was in the interest of justice that her niece be reinstated into accommodation under her watch and care and be allowed to attend her examinations without interference.

The State, represented by the Attorney-General’s Civil Division, opposed the application and asked the court to dismiss it for lack of merit.