THE South Gauteng High Court has ruled against a University of the Witwatersrand student seeking to overturn her academic exclusion and secure provisional registration for the 2026 academic year.
Image: Wits
THE South Gauteng High Court has ruled against a University of the Witwatersrand student seeking to overturn her academic exclusion and secure provisional registration for the 2026 academic year.
In the judgment handed down by Judge Shanaaz Mia, the court refused to review and set aside decisions by Wits and its registrar declining to readmit Catherine Mwila Mwaba to continue her Bachelor of Science degree.
Mwaba enrolled in the Faculty of Science in 2022 for a three-year Bachelor of Science degree, which required students to accumulate 144 credits per year — a total of 432 credits — and allows a maximum of five years for completion.
By the end of 2025, after four years of study, Mwaba had accumulated 264 credits, leaving her 168 credits short of the graduation requirement. She also failed to complete key second-year foundational courses — including Linear Algebra II and/or Mathematical Statistics II — required to progress to third-year studies in Computer Science or Computational Applications.
The university’s Readmissions Committee (WRC1) refused her permission to renew her registration on January 12, 2026. A subsequent in-person appeal before a second committee (WRC2) was also dismissed.
Mwaba approached the court on an urgent basis, arguing that the university’s decision was unlawful, irrational, and procedurally unfair. She sought interim relief allowing her to register for 2026 pending reconsideration of her case.
The court accepted that the matter was urgent, noting that exclusion from an academic year carries consequences that cannot easily be remedied later. However, urgency alone was insufficient to justify judicial intervention.
Judge Mia emphasised that courts must respect universities’ academic autonomy and intervene only where decisions are clearly unlawful or irrational.
Mwaba argued that the Readmissions Committees failed to properly consider her exceptional circumstances, including a psychologist’s report relating to her health challenges. She contended that the university had discretion to allow her to continue her studies under a special curriculum approved by the Senate.
The court found that she had been informed of her risk of exclusion, given an opportunity to submit written representations online, and later allowed to present oral submissions at the second appeal hearing. Procedural fairness, the judge said, guarantees a fair process — not a favourable outcome.
“There was no evidence,” the court held, “that the respondents (Wits) acted irrationally or failed to follow procedures that afforded the applicant an opportunity to appeal.”
The judgment noted that Mwaba’s academic shortfall was not marginal and that she had not completed prerequisite courses necessary for third-year enrolment. The court also questioned how special accommodation could realistically enable her to complete the degree within the five-year limit permitted by university rules.
The court further declined to grant interim relief permitting provisional registration, stating that doing so would require judicial intrusion into academic administration — a step reserved for the clearest cases of unlawfulness.
“This is not such a case,” the judge concluded.
The ruling upholds the university’s exclusion decision, meaning Mwaba will not be allowed to register for the 2026 academic year.