The appellants in this appeal were seeking a
declaration that their right to education and
freedom of worship has been infringed by the

respondent’s regulations. It clarifies on the
circumstances under which a non-fundamental
right may be derogated as enshrined in article
43 of the constitution.
The court considered whether the respondent’s
policies and regulations requiring the
appellants to attend lectures, mandatory tests
and examinations on the Sabbath Day are
inconsistent with articles 20,29,30,37 of the
constitution, the court held that they didn’t. In
determining whether an impugned action or
law infringes a constitutionally protected
fundamental right or freedom, it is necessary to
consider first whether the impugned action or
law infringes upon or violates that
constitutionally protected right or freedom. If
the impugned action or law is found not to
infringe upon that right or freedom, then the
impugned action or law is consistent with and
does not contravene the provisions of the
Constitution guaranteeing that right or
freedom. The court was satisfied that the
measures put in place by the respondent to
ensure that the appellants are accommodated
by extending their stay was sufficient to
accommodate the secular nature of the
respondent without infringing on the right of
other religions at the same institution.