Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Aruforse (2010/1189) [2010] ZAGPJHC 161 (2 February 2010)
The court finds that the application for leave to appeal raises important questions regarding the interpretation of section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, on which there are conflicting unreported decisions. Given the reasonable prospect that another court may differ with the construction adopted, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPJHC 161
- Parties
- Applicant: Minister of Home Affairs; Applicant: Director-General, Department of Home Affairs; Respondent: Kanyo Aruforse
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2010/1189
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Judges
- P.A. Meyer
- Legal Topics
- Immigration Act Interpretation, Leave to Appeal, Conflicting High Court Decisions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Home Affairs
Applicant
Director-General, Department of Home Affairs
Applicant
Kanyo Aruforse
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the interpretation of section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002.
- 2 Whether conflicting unreported decisions on section 34(1) warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court finds that the application for leave to appeal raises important questions regarding the interpretation of section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, on which there are conflicting unreported decisions. Given the reasonable prospect that another court may differ with the construction adopted, and the substantial importance of the matter to the litigants, leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is directed to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Orders
- The first and second applicants are granted leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order handed down on 25 January 2010.
- The appeal is to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
Case No. 2010/1189
DATE:02/02/ 2010
In the matter between:
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS First Applicant DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Second Applicant and KANYO ARUFORSE Respondent
JUDGMENT
MEYER, J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order which I have handed down and made in this matter on 25 January 2010.
[2] I have considered the various grounds raised by the applicants in support of their application for leave to appeal and the submissions of counsel. I need not deal with all the grounds and submissions herein other than to mention that this matter inter alia raises the interpretation of s 34(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 on which there are conflicting unreported decisions. Another court may reasonably differ with the construction which I have placed on the section.
[3] I am accordingly of the view that there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding and the case is undoubtedly of substantial importance to the litigants. The appeal, in my view, requires the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[4] In the result the following order is made:
1.The first and second applicants herein are granted leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment and order which was handed down and made in this matter on 25 January 2010.
2.It is directed that the appeal be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The costs of this application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
P.A.MEYER
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
2 February 2010.