The affordable education loan option
The parents of a Pretoria Boys High School pupil could lose two of their properties for allegedly refusing to pay their son’s outstanding school fees totalling almost R100 000.
It was stated in papers before the Pretoria High Court that the parents (who can not be identified to protect their son) had not paid his school fees for the past three years.
The court was told that the father, a city businessman, who owned a property in an affluent suburb in the east of Pretoria and another in Mamelodi, refused to pay the school fees.
It is claimed that the father “in a very aggressive tone” accused the school and its lawyers of being “racist” and added that the “government should pay the school fees, not him”.
According to the court papers, he also threatened that he “will persist in enrolling his three children at the school and that he is not going to pay one cent towards their schooling”.
Judge Peter Mabuse ordered that the two properties registered in the name of the couple be sold on execution to recover the outstanding fees.
The judge, however, suspended this order on condition that the couple start making monthly payments of R10 000 to the school - starting this month.
The chairman of the school’s governing body, Harry Todd, said the school was forced to turn to the court as the parents had not paid school fees for the years 2009, 2010 and last year.
This was despite the lower court earlier granting three judgments, ordering the parents to pay up.
A warrant was also issued to attach the couple’s assets so that they could be sold on execution if they did not pay.
The parents, after the first judgment, indicated that they would defend the action, but there were no opposing papers in the high court application.
The sheriff tried to serve the couple with the warrant, but he could not. After the father’s outburst, the sheriff was told to sell the assets on execution.
The sheriff also had no success on this score, as he “could not find any assets”.
The sheriff said when he got to the premises, the father denied that the assets listed on the inventory had ever been on the premises.
It was stated that it was clear that the father was not being candid and truthful. Also, that he was “attempting to mislead the applicant (school) in such a manner as to prohibit it from collecting the outstanding money due to it”.
When the sheriff attempted to serve the warrant on the other properties belonging to the family, he “got the run-around”
The family members who lived in the residences listed as belonging to the couple, told the sheriff that the couple no longer lived there.
They directed the sheriff to other addresses, but the family could not be found there either.