Pretoria - The mother of a Grade R learner who said her child fell into an open pit toilet during school hours, not only lost her damages claim against the North West Education MEC, but was also ordered to pay the legal costs.
In a pit toilet saga with a twist, the unemployed mother, who cannot be identified as her son is a minor, turned to the North West Division of the High Court, sitting in Mafikeng, as she was adamant that her son was injured when he fell into the pit toilet.
The headmaster of the school, which was not named in the judgment, teachers and even the gardener who the child claimed had pulled him out of the toilet, denied the events.
While the child was not called as a witness to give his version of events, a school friend said he saw him inside the toilet.
But North West High Court Judge President Ronald Hendricks did not believe that the child fell into the toilet. He and other parties involved in the matter embarked on an inspection of the toilets to get a better picture of the alleged events.
The school and the department denied the incident and said the pit toilets were usually locked, as there were other toilets.
A team of investigators appointed to investigate the matter found that the pit toilets did not pose any threat and were designed in such a way that it was not possible for a child to fall into one.
The mother testified that on the day of the incident she received a phone call from a teacher, telling her that her child, identified as O, was lost.
O’s grandmother, meanwhile, phoned the mother to say the child was at home with her. The mother found O in his pyjamas, lying in bed with his grandmother. He had a swollen face, a green patch on his face and bruises at the back of his head, the mother testified.
According to her, his school uniform was clean, but his shoes were dirty and she could not make sense of that.
She testified that the smell of faeces was coming out of O’s mouth and when she asked him what had happened. He cried and could not speak.
She bathed him the next morning and prepared him for school, while the child cried in pain.
The mother went to the school to try to find out what had happened, but, according to her, the principal asked her “why did she bring a slow learner to her school?”.
When she asked about the incident, the principal told her that she did not want to talk about it and that she would conduct her own investigations, the mother said.
According to the mother, she spoke to the gardener when she left, who told her that he had saved the child’s life the previous day when the child fell into the toilet.
According to her, the child later told her that he fell into the toilet. This was after he had nightmares and kept on screaming for help.
One of the child’s classmates testified that O asked his teacher to go to the toilet, but when he did not return, the witness went looking for him. He told the court that he heard O screaming in the pit toilet.
He said he found his friend inside the toilet and he went to call the gardener for help. He said the gardener came, took out a rope from the toilet area and removed O.
The witness said he felt terrible as he left, as he heard his friend screaming.
The judge said his evidence must be viewed with caution, as he could not even remember how old he was, nor whether he told his teacher or anyone else what had happened when he returned to class.
“If indeed such an incident took place, one would expect that he would have informed his class teacher, or the person he requested permission from to go to the toilet, about what he witnessed at the pit toilets,” the judge said.
Another child testified that on that day he looked through the window and saw a pair of sports shorts and a shirt hanging on the fence. The moment he saw the clothes he thought that maybe a child soiled him/herself.
According to him they were then called into an emergency assembly where the children were told that “everything that happens on the school premises, should remain within the school premises”.
After the inspection of the toilets, Judge Hendricks concluded that the toilet pot was too small for a child aged five to six years and of average built to fall into. “Even if it was at all possible, the down pipe of the said toilet pot is too narrow for the child to fall into the pit.”
That being the case, the only reasonable and plausible inference to be drawn was that the child most probably soiled himself.
Pretoria News