- Immediate South African Sign Language interpretation will be provided for the student’s lectures and academic engagements.
- The agreement includes fee waivers, accessible technology, ongoing implementation and clear responsibilities for both parties.
- The Equality Court case remains before the courts, with the High Court retaining oversight of the agreement.
A deaf university student’s education will no longer be left waiting for the outcome of a broader constitutional fight over accessibility after the High Court in Pretoria approved an agreement requiring immediate South African Sign Language support and a comprehensive framework for inclusive learning.
Judge CS Collis made the agreed order on 4 September 2026 after the Deaf Federation of South Africa, the student applicant and the first respondent reached agreement on Part A of the proceedings. The order delivers practical accessibility measures immediately while the wider Equality Court case continues to determine the broader rights issues affecting deaf students in higher education.
While Part A has now secured immediate South African Sign Language interpretation services and the university has since implemented that support for the student, Part B of the application remains before the Equality Court.
The Legal Resources Centre is seeking an order directing the university to amend its Policy on Students with Disabilities and its Language Policy in their entirety, with the broader challenge aimed at strengthening accessibility protections for deaf students in higher education.
Immediate access reaches every scheduled lecture
The agreement requires the university to provide South African Sign Language interpretation services for the student’s English 110, English 118, Psychology and Criminology lectures for the rest of the first semester. Where a qualified interpreter is unavailable, the university may provide a Child of Deaf Adult (CODA) interpreter or a sign language deaf student teacher as an alternative form of support.
The student’s full lecture timetable is protected under the order. English 110 will receive interpretation on Mondays from 3.30pm to 4.20pm, Wednesdays from 11.30am to 12.20pm and Fridays from 7.30am to 8.20am.
English 118 is covered on Mondays from 1.30pm to 2.20pm and Wednesdays from 12.30pm to 1.20pm. Psychology lectures on Mondays from 2:30pm to 3.20pm and Tuesdays from 11.30am to 12.20pm are included, together with Criminology on Tuesdays from 10.30am to 11.20am and Thursdays from 3.30pm to 4.20pm.
The order recognises that it may not be possible to provide interpretation for every lecture immediately after the agreement takes effect. Even so, the university is required to make every reasonable effort to provide South African Sign Language services and, where that is not possible, to provide the best available alternative.
Judge Collis recorded the parties’ agreement that “The First Respondent shall make all reasonable efforts to provide South African Sign Language interpretation services or CODA or a sign language deaf student teacher for all the lectures and, if that is not possible, shall provide the best available alternative services.”
Learning support extends beyond the classroom
Accessibility under the agreement is not limited to formal lectures. The university must also provide South African Sign Language interpretation, or an approved alternative, for further lectures, tutorials and meetings with lecturers for up to three hours per week on average over the course of each month.
From the second semester of 2026, the university must continue providing South African Sign Language interpretation for a proportion of the student’s lectures equivalent to the first semester arrangement. The specific lectures will be agreed through reasonable engagement between the parties, allowing the support to adapt to the student’s academic programme.
Where additional academic engagements arise, the student may request interpretation in writing on reasonable notice in advance. The university must then promptly inform her whether it is reasonably possible to provide the requested service.
The agreement protects the student’s finances
The settlement also resolves part of the student’s academic registration. She has undertaken to deregister from Visual Culture Studies and Education OPV112, while the university has undertaken to waive or refund the fees for both courses.
The financial protection ensures that changes to the student’s curriculum do not result in an additional cost arising from the accessibility dispute.
Technology becomes part of the accessibility model
The parties also agreed to incorporate transcription applications and other technological solutions into the student’s learning support. The student will use the applications alongside sign language interpretation to assess their functionality and improve her own proficiency with the technology.
The university must provide reasonable assistance in using the applications and cover any costs associated with them, reinforcing that accessible technology is intended to strengthen inclusion rather than replace human interpretation.
Both sides carry ongoing responsibilities
The agreement places clear responsibilities on both the student and the university. The student must attend every lecture for which interpretation has been arranged and provide reasonable prior written notice if she cannot attend, preventing unnecessary interpretation costs. Where an emergency makes advance notice impossible, she must notify the university in writing as soon as reasonably possible afterwards.
Implementation of the agreement will be managed through the Department of Student Affairs Student Development and Disability Unit, which has been designated as the responsible department for ongoing engagement with the student.
The parties must also meet on a termly basis, or whenever reasonably required, to discuss in good faith how the accessibility arrangements are being implemented and whether they are effectively supporting the student’s education.
The broader Equality Court fight continues
Although Part A has been resolved by agreement, the litigation is far from over. Judge Collis retained the High Court’s supervisory role by allowing any party to re-enrol the application on reasonable notice and duly supplemented papers should further relief become necessary during implementation.
The costs of Part A will be determined together with the costs of Part B, leaving the broader Equality Court challenge to continue while the student receives immediate access to the support she needs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
