Africa-Press – South-Africa. Former Rhodes University student Yolanda Dyantyi, who was banned from the institution for life in 2017, wants R10 million and an apology, among other demands, after she won her case in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
In her third and final year of study towards a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2017, Dyantyi was found guilty of a range of charges, including kidnapping, assault, defamation and insubordination, by an independent disciplinary inquiry the university had instituted.
The Eastern Cape High Court in Grahamstown dismissed her review application in March 2020. The SCA set aside that judgment.
News24 previously reported the SCA had remitted the matter to the institution for reconsideration, with a condition that another proctor be appointed for any continuation of the disciplinary inquiry.
The SCA also ordered the institution to pay Dyantyi’s legal costs.A new disciplinary inquiry proctor has not yet been appointed.
Now, in a letter News24 has seen, Dyantyi’s lawyers have demanded that the university pay their client R10 million, issue her with an apology, and pay R214 000 to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which she owes.
The attorney handling the matter, Gardee Godrich, told News24 the letter of demand was sent to the university on Thursday.
The letter read:
It also stated that Dyantyi had suffered reputational damage, loss of income, emotional stress, trauma and shock.
The university was asked to comply by no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
In the letter, the university was warned: “Failure to comply with the demands of our client, it is our instruction to approach the court for a competent redress at an attorney and own scale cost, including costs of two counsel to be employed. Our client is amenable to an amicable resolution of this matter.”
But Rhodes University spokesperson Velisile Bukula told News24 that the university did not receive anything from Dyantyi’s lawyers.
“When we have received it, we will respond accordingly. Ms Dyantyi is not a student of Rhodes University, and therefore we cannot institute any disciplinary action against her,” Bukula said.
Dyantyi denied the university’s claims, adding that the letter was sent to the university and that the same letter would be emailed to the vice-chancellor.
Dyantyi told News24:
In the SCA’s judgment, it emerged that the university was affected by student protests from 17 to 20 April 2016.
After the emergence, on social media, of a list of male students and former students who had allegedly committed rape or acts of sexual assault at the university, the protests were directed at a perceived rape culture at the institution.
The protesters believed that the university failed to effectively address the existence of pervasive sexual violence on its campus.
During the protests, three male students were removed from their rooms at university residences, manhandled and deprived of their freedom of movement.
Despite calls for his release from the vice-chancellor and other members of the univeristy’s senior management, one of the students was held against his will for about 11 hours.
The protests continued until the university obtained a comprehensive interim interdict on 20 April 2016.
Dyantyi participated in the protests but she maintained that she hadn’t done anything unlawful.
The university’s proctor, Wayne Hutchinson, chaired Dyantyi’s disciplinary inquiry.
Hutchinson held that from the outset, Dyantyi had no intention of testifying in her own defence.
But the SCA found that the finding was gratuitous and wrong.
Dyantyi’s legal representatives repeatedly stated without question that she would testify, and she had not been called upon to answer such a proposition, the court said. She was excused from the hearing on more than one occasion to prepare for her testimony, particularly on 9 October 2017.
According to the SCA, Dyantyi’s counsel asked that the matter be remitted to the university for reconsideration before another proctor.
In light of the findings of the proctor in respect of credibility and otherwise, the disciplinary proceedings should not continue before him, the court ruled.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
