Harare — IN a landmark ruling, dreadlocked eight-year-old Glen Norah boy, Farai Benjamin Dzvova, has won a constitutional case prohibiting school authorities from expelling him because of his hairstyle.

Dzvova - popularly known as Benji - was expelled from Ruvheneko Primary School a few days after he started Grade One in January last year, prompting his father Mr Collin Dzvova to challenge the expulsion at the High Court.

In his case, Mr Dzvova sued the Minister of Education, Sport and Culture Cde Aeneas Chigwedere, Ruvheneko Primary School and the headmaster who was only identified as Mr Nyahunye.

The High Court, however, granted the boy interim relief to go back to school pending the determination of his case by the Supreme Court after his father raised a constitutional point. Through his lawyer Mr Zvikomborero Chadambuka, Mr Dzvova argued that his son's expulsion from school infringed on the boy's human rights as enshrined in the country's Constitution.

Justice Misheck Cheda heard the case this week with Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku and Justices Wilson Sandura, Vernanda Ziyambi and Luke Malaba. They unanimously agreed that the attempt by the school authorities to bar the boy from school contravened not only the Constitution of Zimbabwe, but also certain provisions of the Education Act which provide for children's fundamental rights to education in Zimbabwe.

Justice Cheda -- who handed the judgment which was made available on Wednesday -- declared that the expulsion of Rastafarians from school on the basis of their expression of their religious beliefs through their hairstyles breached Section 19 and 23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

" . . . the respondents be and hereby compelled to allow the minor Farai Benjamin Dzvova to enter upon the second respondent school for purposes of education," said Justice Cheda in the judgment.

"The respondents are hereby interdicted from in any way negatively interfering with the minor . . . education, more particular in that the respondents be and hereby barred from separating him from his classmates; otherwise detaining . . . in solitary or the sole company of adults in any other way discriminating against . . . on the basis of his hairstyle or his religious belief."

In March 2005, the boy enrolled for Grade Zero at the school in line with the new education policy, which required that children's pre-schools be attached to primary schools.

The boy graduated from the pre-school system and was enrolled in primary school. His parents paid fees and bought all necessary books and stationery. Mr Dzvova said while in pre-school, the boy's hair was never cut and was kept in dreadlocks.

The school authorities argued that in terms of the Education Act, the minister had powers to make regulations which provide for discipline in schools and the exercise of the disciplinary powers over pupils. These include powers to administer corporal punishment and the suspension and expulsion of pupils in respect of their attendance and conduct in schools.

However, in determining the question of whether the headmaster was authorised through the Act to make rules, Justice Cheda found that the Education Act did not authorise the minister to give headmasters powers to make regulations to set conditions of admission of pupils to school.

"I do not consider that asking the pupil to conform to a standard of discipline would include an aspect that infringes on a pupil's manifestation of his religion," said Justice Cheda.

The judge also noted that there was no suggestion by the respondents that keeping dreadlocks was an act of discipline.

"If the headmaster believed that he had authority to make such rules, then he was wrong," he said.

"The minister did not make regulations concerning the type of hair to be kept by pupils, neither did he delegate the making of regulations on that subject matter to the headmaster."