Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 25 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 of the Constitution and the values that underlie our Constitution. The application of the principle pacta sunt servanda is, therefore, subject to constitutional control.” Adv. Mafukidze submits that the School’s contract of admission contains unlawful and onerous terms and conditions targeted against members of different faiths. They are contrary to public policy and therefore cannot qualify as rules capable of enforcement. Adv. de Bourbon retorts that, although the School’s assemblies in chapel carry religious overtones, no pupil is obliged to participate in any religious activity. All the pupils are simply required to attend and be respectful. No one is victimised for not singing or praying. To this extent, the School is entitled to expect conformity and the applicants are equally entitled to remove their daughters to a school that does not offend their religious principles. This accords with the rights of establishment and maintenance explicitly preserved and conferred upon independent educational institutions by s 75(2) of the Constitution. It is common cause that the religious status of the applicants’ children was known from the outset and that the previous policy of the School was one of religious tolerance and accommodation. In this respect, I am unable to accept the submission by Adv. de Bourbon that the applicants acted fraudulently in signing the contract of admission simply to gain the admission of their daughters into the School. This is because the previous policy was highlighted in the School’s website which, although outdated, appears to have been relied upon by the applicants. In this context, therefore, it cannot be said that their daughters’ refusal to attend chapel is unreasonable.