Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 27 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 the School Head, whose decision was final and binding. Thus, the applicants were cognisant of the fact that any previous latitude or exemption granted in relation to chapel attendance was subject to being reversed and that they and their daughters would be obliged to comply with any such change in policy. In short, there can be no doubt that they willingly consented to the implementation and enforcement of the School’s rules and regulations, even if they were altered after the admission of their daughters into the School. In the Wittmann case (supra), the facts of which involved the enforcement of an enrolment contract in circumstances which are are very similar to those herein, van Dijkhorst J, at 454-455, opined as follows in relation to parochial community schools: “In respect of these educational institutions the fundamental freedom of religion of ‘outsiders’ is limited to the freedom of non-joinder. Outsiders cannot join on their own terms and once they have joined cannot impose their own terms. This indicates that the waiver of the freedom of religion (for the limited duration of one’s membership and within the limits of the institution’s constitution) is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution in the case of private educational institutions. Waiver per se of that freedom is therefore not unconstitutional.” I note that this decision was premised on specific provisions of the South African Constitution which are not identical to the corresponding provisions in our Constitution and that, as far as I am aware, it has not been followed or applied by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. I also note, with the utmost respect, that the sentiments expressed by the learned judge might be criticised as being somewhat exclusivist, having been pronounced in the peculiar post-apartheid milieu of that country.