A high-stakes legal battle over a controversial investigative report into allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) reached a critical juncture this week as the High Court in Pretoria dismissed an application for leave to appeal a previous ruling that denied the school access to the full document.
Judge GN Moshoana ruled on Wednesday that the school’s attempt to appeal an interlocutory order was legally premature and lacked reasonable prospects of success. The judgment effectively forces the school to proceed with its main review application against the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) without the full investigative report it has desperately sought to uncover.
Dispute
The core of the dispute involves an investigative report commissioned by the GDE following racial tensions at the prestigious school. While an executive summary and media statements have been released, the School Governing Body (SGB) has been fighting to obtain the complete record to bolster its legal challenge against the department’s subsequent decisions.
The SGB had previously launched a Rule 30A application, which requires the dispatch of a record in review proceedings. When Moshoana initially ruled that the GDE had not breached this rule, the SGB sought leave to appeal to a higher court.
In his 16-page judgment delivered on 17 December 2025, Judge Moshoana was scathing in his assessment of the SGB’s legal strategy, describing the request for an appeal as an attempt at “piecemeal adjudication” that would only serve to “put a spoke on the wheels” of the justice system.
The court’s decision rested on two primary pillars: the appealability of the order and the merits of the school’s arguments.
Unnecessary delays
Moshoana emphasized that the order in question was “interlocutory in nature” meaning it was a procedural step in an ongoing case rather than a final judgment on the main dispute.
“Not an ounce of the review application will be resolved by the appeal,” Moshoana found. He argued that allowing the appeal would lead to unnecessary delays, whereas the law favours resolving cases in their entirety rather than through fragmented appeals.
The court rejected the SGB’s claim that being denied the report at this stage would cause “irreparable harm” to their review of the GDE’s actions. The judge pointed out that the SGB had already conceded that a review of the MEC’s statutory powers could technically proceed without the report.
The judge also addressed the SGB’s attempt to use court rules to “bypass the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA)”.
Using a sports metaphor, he remarked that the school had essentially “handed itself a red card” through this “self-inflicted exclusion”.
The judge further clarified that his ruling does not prevent the school from introducing the report later if they obtain it through other legal avenues.
“The order itself does not state that the applicant is prevented to introduce the report in the review proceedings,” the judgment clarified.
Friction
The judgment also revealed friction between the bench and the school’s high-powered legal team, which included two Senior Counsel (silks).
The judge took umbrage at a submission by the SGB’s counsel that some of the court’s reasoning had not been put to them during oral arguments.
He described the legal team’s subsequent action providing a 132-page transcript without specific references as “preposterous in the extreme” and “unprocedural”.
Moshoana noted it is not the role of a judge to “trawl through” hundreds of pages to find a specific point of argument.
With the application for leave to appeal dismissed, the Pretoria High School for Girls SGB faces the prospect of arguing its main review case against the GDE using the information currently at its disposal.
The court ordered the school to pay the legal costs of the application, including the fees for both senior and junior counsel representing the GDE.
