CE and Others v The Minister of Home Affairs and Others (27367/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 542 (11 October 2021)

CE and Others v The Minister of Home Affairs and Others (27367/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 542 (11 October 2021)

The court found that the principle of family unity, as reflected in international conventions and the Refugees Act, entitled the dependants to be included in the principal asylum application without the need for separate applications. The respondents' argument that each family member needed to apply individually was unsupported by evidence or law. The court held that the applicants had locus standi to prosecute the review application, even in the absence of the principal applicant, and that the matter was not moot. The court further found that the asylum process was procedurally unfair due to the lack of competent interpretation services and that the composition of the Refugee Appeal...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 542
Parties
Applicant: C[....] E; Applicant: E[....] E; Applicant: V[....] E; Applicant: A[....] E; Applicant: P[....] E; Applicant: K[....] E; Applicant: M[....] E; Applicant: E[....]2 Prince Kabwe; Applicant: A[....]2 Tusimbana; Respondent: The Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board; Respondent: Refugee Status Determination Officer; Respondent: Director–General of the Department of Home Affairs; Respondent: Chairperson of the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs; Respondent: Manager of the Refugee Reception Office, Marabastad, Pretoria
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2021
Case Number
27367/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Joinder
Outcome
Application for review granted; decisions of the Refugee Status Determination Officer and Refugee Appeal Board set aside; matter remitted for de novo hearing; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Fourie AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Refugees Act, Family Unity Principle, Locus Standi, Procedural Fairness, Condonation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Refugees Act Family Unity Principle Locus Standi Procedural Fairness Condonation

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[....] E

Applicant

E[....] E

Applicant

V[....] E

Applicant

A[....] E

Applicant

P[....] E

Applicant

K[....] E

Applicant

M[....] E

Applicant

E[....]2 Prince Kabwe

Applicant

A[....]2 Tusimbana

Applicant

The Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board

Respondent

Refugee Status Determination Officer

Respondent

Director–General of the Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Chairperson of the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs

Respondent

Manager of the Refugee Reception Office, Marabastad, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Joinder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to prosecute the review application despite not having filed individual asylum applications.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of asylum and appeal by the Refugee Status Determination Officer and Refugee Appeal Board was procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the composition of the Refugee Appeal Board was lawful under the Refugees Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the principle of family unity, as reflected in international conventions and the Refugees Act, entitled the dependants to be included in the principal asylum application without the need for separate applications. The respondents' argument that each family member needed to apply individually was unsupported by evidence or law. The court held that the applicants had locus standi to prosecute the review application, even in the absence of the principal applicant, and that the matter was not moot. The court further found that the asylum process was procedurally unfair due to the lack of competent interpretation services and that the composition of the Refugee Appeal...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; decisions of the Refugee Status Determination Officer and Refugee Appeal Board set aside; matter remitted for de novo hearing; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is granted.
  • The decision of the Second Respondent taken on 26 August 2009 under Appeal Number 1596/09 obtained against the First to Fifth Applicants in respect of File Number BRA/006576/04 is reviewed and set aside.