Blind SA Takes Schools to Court Over Conditions for Children With Disabilities

Blind SA went to the high courts in Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg to appoint curators for two special schools it says are failing to adequately provide for learners with disabilities.

• Blind SA approached the Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg high courts to appoint curators for two special schools it says are failing to adequately provide for learners with disabilities.

• Blind SA alleges learners face poor infrastructure, inadequate learning materials, and incidents of violence and sexual abuse at Filadelfia Secondary and at Arthur Blaxall.

• The schools said the issues were addressed and they denied the need for court intervention.

• Represented by the Equal Education Law Centre, Blind SA has now secured the appointment of a curator at Arthur Blaxall by agreement between the parties.

The Pretoria High Court and the Pietermaritzburg High Court recently heard two separate but related applications from Blind SA on the alleged infringement of the rights of learners with disabilities at two special schools, one in Gauteng and another in KwaZulu-Natal.

The two cases expose the unique challenges faced by learners with disabilities to access their constitutional right to basic education.

Blind SA is represented in both cases by the Equal Education Law Centre.

Based on a report from the Human Rights Commission and various reports in the media, Blind SA says Filadelfia Secondary School in Soshanguve, a special school, is plagued with challenges that result in a chronic denial of the rights of learners.

As a special school, Filadelfia accommodates students who are deaf, visually impaired, blind or have physical disabilities. The school has some 300 students, all of whom reside in hostels.

According to Blind SA, the school infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. The hostel food is poor quality. The school lacks adequate and quality learning materials, equipment and devices to assist learners, such as braille devices. The teachers are poorly trained in the use of sign language and braille. There are allegations of sexual harassment of learners by teachers, outbreaks of violence between learners and teachers as well as between learners, and the misuse of alcohol and drugs.

BlindSA says despite repeated attempts to engage with the school, the School Governing Body and the Department of Education through correspondence and in-person meetings, nothing meaningful has been done to address the issues, prompting its court action. It wants the court to appoint an attorney from the Centre for Child Law as a curator ad litem.

A curator ad litem is an official appointed by a court to represent the interests of a person who does not have the capacity to represent themselves – in this case the learners of Filadelfia High School.

BlindSA contends that only a curator ad litem can address these issues in a transparent and impartial manner while providing learners an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the process. The curator ad litem would be tasked with doing an independent investigation into the grievances and reporting back to the court with recommendations.

In response, Filadelfia Secondary School argues that all the issues raised by Blind SA have since been addressed, that Blind SA’s reliance on media reports is inadmissible, because it is hearsay, and that the appointment of a curator ad litem is both unnecessary and uncalled for because the School Governing Body already enables the participation of parents, learners with disabilities and community representatives of people with disabilities. Also a curator ad litem should only be appointed in exceptional circumstances, they argue.

The hearing took place on 28 May. Judgment is reserved.

Arthur Blaxall School for the Blind

In a second application concerning a similar set of facts, Blind SA was in the high court in Pietermaritzburg on 2 June to argue that a curator ad litem be appointed at Arthur Blaxall School for the Blind.

Blind SA alleges that learners have been sexually assaulted or raped and despite this being reported, the school has not taken any meaningful action. It also says the school does not have sufficient mechanical braille writers or braille books, and the food is of poor quality. It says children over the age of 18 are excluded from hostels, even though it is challenging for a blind child to live on their own without assistance. In any event, the cost of accommodation outside of the hostel is not affordable for most parents.

Reports from the Human Rights Commission and SECTION27 brought to light the barriers that learners with disabilities face in enjoying their rights to equality and basic education. Blind SA says it convened a meeting with the Department of Basic Education, the Human Rights Commission, SECTION27 and Equal Education, but it has not resulted in the school addressing the grievances.

The school argued that a curator ad litem may only be appointed in exceptional circumstances and that those circumstances are not present in this case. It said the incidents happened long ago and the necessary interventions have been made. The appointment of a curator ad litem will also interrupt the smooth operation of the school, it argued.

On 2 June, Blind SA and Arthur Blaxall reached a settlement which was made an order of court. In terms of that order, the Chairperson of the KwaZulu Natal Society of Advocates would be tasked with nominating a curator ad litem who would have the power to investigate Blind SA’s grievances, particularly concerns around “abuse, maltreatment, food, hostels, and school programmes”.

The curator ad litem would be obliged to provide a report to the court by 30 September 2025.

Blind SA and Equal Education Law Centre have welcomed the judgment.

These cases will have significant ramifications not only for learners at these two schools but for learners with disabilities across the country.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.