MEC must pay for injured Sosha children

THE MEC for Education in Gauteng was held liable for the damages suffered by two Grade 1 pupils in 2020.

At the time, the new gate at a Soshanguve school fell on them as they went to the portable toilets near the gate.

The mothers of the two children turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to claim damages from the Gauteng Education Department.

The mothers of the children – who were only identified as SHN and BAN – blamed the school and the teachers for allowing the children to go to the toilets unsupervised.

The children were aged 5 and 6 respectively at the time, and they suffered severe injuries, including multi-bone breaks.

The mothers also blamed the accident on shoddy construction work done on the gate and adjacent wall.

The court was told that the children had to open the gate in order to reach the toilets.

The incident occurred a day after the opening of the 2020 school term.

The gate formed part of a newly constructed wall built around the school buildings within the fencedoff school property.

The gate and wall were designed and constructed by the contractor following the green light for the project given by the school governing body.

The school has 1 352 pupils and 32 personnel. General construction was taking place on the school

property on the day of the incident. The first phase of construction, which involved the construction of the wall and gate, was complete at the time when the new term started and the second phase was in progress.

A feeding scheme worker at the school testified that on her first day after returning after the holidays, the gardener at the school told her not to use the gate because its construction was incomplete, and it could fall on them.

He said they would be told when to use the gate and security would be posted at it.

She noted that security had not been posted at the gate at the time.

Shortly before break, while she was carrying food to the classrooms, she saw pupils in the vicinity of the gate, which fell on them.

She ran to help and managed to pull BAN out from under the gate, while the gardener pulled out SHN.

They carried the pupils to the principal’s office, and the feeding scheme worker accompanied the principal in his car when he took the pupils to a clinic for medical attention.

The children were in immense pain and said they were on their way to the toilet when the gate fell. They were taken by ambulance from the clinic to a hospital.

According to the feeding scheme worker, the principal and senior members of the school did not warn anyone about the unsafe gate, nor were there safety cones or safety tape adjacent to the construction site.

It emerged that four children were injured that day, but only two mothers turned to court.

A forensic engineer who later inspected the construction site testified that the standard of the welding showed poor welding practices which indicated that there was no quality control over the project.

There was also no stopping mechanism for the gate, which allowed it to move beyond its boundaries where it had no support, and fell over.

The principal testified that the design and construction of the wall and gate were certified safe and complete at the time the new school term started.

He added that although the portable toilets were located on school property on the day of the incident, they had mistakenly been placed in an incorrect location outside the wall near the sports field.

They should have been located on the school building side, away from the gate.

He said he had been assured of the gate’s safety by the contractor, and the issue of setting safety measures for the gate never arose before the incident.

Acting Judge T Nichols said this tragic incident could have been averted if appropriately qualified people were employed to deliver on the contract.

“Alternatively, if the learners were supervised at the time, the educator or staff member may have been able to prevent the learners from being harmed when the gate fell,” the judge said.

In concluding that the school was at fault, the judge added that it would have been unlikely that the incident would have occurred if the toilets were located away from the site.

The amount of damages payable will be determined at a later stage.