Ahmed and Another v Refugee Status Determination Officer and Others (077702/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 220 (4 March 2025)

Ahmed and Another v Refugee Status Determination Officer and Others (077702/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 220 (4 March 2025)

The Court held that it cannot usurp the statutory function of the Refugee Reception Officer (RRO) and may only issue a mandamus where there is clear evidence that the RRO has refused to exercise the statutory power. In this case, there was no evidence that the applicants had approached the RRO for the exercise of powers under section 22(1) of the Refugees Act, nor that the RRO had refused. The legal position regarding the RRO's powers is clear from the Constitutional Court's decision in Saidi, which clarified that the RRO is empowered to extend asylum permits pending judicial review. Therefore, the appropriate relief is to direct the applicants to approach the RRO, not to grant a mandamus...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 220
Parties
Applicant: Abudullahi Mumin Ahmed; Applicant: One Another; Respondent: Refugee Status Determination Officer; Respondent: Five Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2025
Case Number
077702/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Unopposed Application for Judicial Review and Mandamus; Hearing on Draft Order and Ripeness
Outcome
Review application postponed sine die; applicants directed to approach the Refugee Reception Officer; no order as to costs.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Refugees Act, Mandamus, Judicial Review, Statutory Powers, Asylum Permit
Administrative Law Refugees Act Mandamus Judicial Review Statutory Powers Asylum Permit

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abudullahi Mumin Ahmed

Applicant

One Another

Applicant

Refugee Status Determination Officer

Respondent

Five Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Unopposed Application for Judicial Review and Mandamus; Hearing on Draft Order and Ripeness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court is empowered to order the issuing of an asylum seeker permit pending finalisation of a PAJA review.
  2. 2 Whether a mandamus can be issued in the absence of evidence that the Refugee Reception Officer was approached and refused to exercise statutory power.
  3. 3 Whether a declaratory order is appropriate when the legal position is already clarified by precedent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it cannot usurp the statutory function of the Refugee Reception Officer (RRO) and may only issue a mandamus where there is clear evidence that the RRO has refused to exercise the statutory power. In this case, there was no evidence that the applicants had approached the RRO for the exercise of powers under section 22(1) of the Refugees Act, nor that the RRO had refused. The legal position regarding the RRO's powers is clear from the Constitutional Court's decision in Saidi, which clarified that the RRO is empowered to extend asylum permits pending judicial review. Therefore, the appropriate relief is to direct the applicants to approach the RRO, not to grant a mandamus...

Court Disposition

Review application postponed sine die; applicants directed to approach the Refugee Reception Officer; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review application is postponed sine die.
  • The applicants are directed to approach the relevant Refugee Reception Officer and request the exercise of powers under section 22(1) of the Refugees Act.