Two South African students win a court ruling against the school’s excessive vape punishment, violating the “no double jeopardy” principle.
Key Points:
- News Qualification: A South African court ruled that a school’s secondary disciplinary process against students was illegal, with the core issue being a violation of the principle of double jeopardy.
- Punishment Disputes: The school’s escalating punishments for the same vape incident, ranging from a short-term suspension to permanent expulsion, revocation of leadership roles, and cancellation of scholarships, were deemed by the court to be “cumulative punishments.”
- Court’s perspective: The court acknowledged that the students’ violation of rules, involving vapes, constituted serious misconduct. However, the severity of the offense did not give the school the right to implement illegal disciplinary procedures or excessive penalties.
- Background of the parties involved: The two students are rugby players who entered the school on scholarships, and this incident directly impacted their studies and financial support.
Two South African students had their scholarships revoked for vaping
September 15, 2025 – According to a recent report by IOL. The Western Cape High Court in South Africa has ruled that disciplinary measures taken by a university against two students for using vapes in their dormitory were unlawful. The court cited the principle of “non bis in idem” as the basis for its judgment.
These two current tenth-grade students were convicted of vaping on separate occasions. The first incident occurred towards the end of 2023 when they were in eighth grade, with the second incident happening a few months later.
The court rules the school’s punishment invalid
In the first incident, two students, referred to as L and M, were given a punishment of being banned from residing in the school for several months. However, the following year. When they were caught once again smoking vapes. They were faced with the penalty of being permanently expelled from the school.
Several days later, the school unexpectedly imposed additional penalties for the same violation – revoking their leadership position and withdrawing their scholarship.
Two male students, both football players, enrolled in this unnamed school through scholarships (to protect the identities of L and M). They began their eighth-grade studies in 2023. In November of the same year, they were each caught with vapes. According to the school’s code of conduct, vaping is classified as a class C violation and is considered a serious misconduct.
A vape was found hidden in L’s locker at the time. After being informed by other dormitory residents, L admitted to possessing and using the vape to student leaders and teachers. L also revealed that M had used the vape as well. Both individuals were found to have committed a Class C disciplinary offense and were subjected to a six-week suspension from the dormitory.
Two students were caught smoking vapes on campus after being monitored. The school board initiated disciplinary proceedings following the incident. The students admitted to violating the rules and were found guilty, resulting in their permanent expulsion from the dormitory.
M’s father wrote a letter to the school expressing his refusal to accept the punishment of being banned from living on campus. When he inquired about his right to appeal, he was informed that he did not have the eligibility to appeal.
Several weeks later, the school unexpectedly launched a new disciplinary process for the same vape incident, resulting in the additional revocation of their leadership positions and scholarships.
Judge Gayaat Da Silva Salie pointed out that the fact that using vapes violates school rules and harms health is undeniable. However, the seriousness of the offense does not exempt the disciplinary process from the requirements of legality and fairness, nor does it allow for excessive or disproportionate penalties.
She stated that the school board’s treatment of vaping as a criminal offense likely affected the severity of the punishment and the evaluation of the violation. The judge, when overturning the punishment, pointed out that these measures constituted a continuous accumulation of penalties.
