A Western Cape man sued the mother of his two-year-old kid, seeking an injunction compelling her to sign forms for 2021 entrance to Herschel Girls School in Claremont, Cape Town.
The parties are in a nasty conflict and have filed multiple applications against each other for their daughter, who turns three this year.
In this case, the father contended that the mother was unreasonable and refused to co-parent their daughter.
He stated that after multiple meetings with her to achieve an agreement on a suitable school, he was unsuccessful and was obliged to seek the Western Cape High Court on an urgent basis.
In order to bolster his case, he stated that applications for respectable and recognized institutions for the 2025 academic year had already ended, and he had a limited amount of time to persuade the mother or lose the placement.
He said that it was too late to apply to another school of the same quality, and that the delay would jeopardize his child’s opportunity to attend one of the greatest institutions in the country.
In her response, the mother stated that the application was submitted prematurely and that the father caused the hurry by enrolling the child at the school at the last minute.
The mother went on to say that their kid was not yet three years old and that enrolling her in school was not an urgent problem. She maintained that there was no evidence that the delay would create emotional or developmental harm to the child.
The matter was considered by acting Judge Rehana Khan Parker, who stated that the application was not ripe for hearing because there were no compelling reasons to bring it on an urgent basis.
The judge concluded that a few more months without school would not harm their child, who is only three years old and still wears diapers. She went on to say that their case should be resolved through mediation.
However, she claimed that the application constituted an abuse of state resources.
“It is an abuse of the court processes to skip the queue to get this court to grant an order in circumstances where only genuinely urgent matters ought to be heard.”
Parker ruled that the matter was not urgent after considering the comments made by both parties and the relevant case law.
The application was struck from the rolls.
