Rahim v The Minister of Home Affairs (965/2013) [2015] ZASCA 92; 2015 (4) SA 433 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 425 (SCA) (29 May 2015)

Rahim v The Minister of Home Affairs (965/2013) [2015] ZASCA 92; 2015 (4) SA 433 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 425 (SCA) (29 May 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the detention of the appellants was unlawful because the respondent failed to prove that the Director-General had made a determination regarding the manner and place of detention as required by section 34(1) of the Immigration Act. The court found that the principle of legality, as well as international human rights standards, require that such a determination be made and publicly proclaimed to ensure certainty and compliance with constitutional norms. The respondent's reliance on the use of police stations, prisons, and the Lindela facility without evidence of a specific determination was insufficient. The court rejected the respondent's arguments...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 92
Parties
Appellant: Abdulrahim Rahim; Appellant: Hossain Kamal; Appellant: Zakir Hossain; Appellant: Harun Mohammed; Appellant: Mohammed Salla Uddin; Appellant: Abdul Shamol; Appellant: Mahbub Alom; Appellant: Toyobur Rahman; Appellant: Suman Chudhury; Appellant: Mustafi Gurraman; Appellant: Eunice Hayford; Appellant: Zaiur Rahman; Appellant: Md Alap; Appellant: Norul Alom; Appellant: Mahemintu Mintu; Respondent: The Minister of Home Affairs
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2015
Case Number
965/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The detention of each appellant was declared unlawful. Damages awarded to each appellant according to the duration of detention. Costs awarded to appellants, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Navsa, Majiedt, Mbha, Zondi, Meyer
Legal Topics
Immigration Detention, Principle of Legality, Unlawful Arrest, Damages for Unlawful Detention, International Human Rights Standards, Asylum Seeker Rights
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Immigration Detention Principle of Legality Unlawful Arrest Damages for Unlawful Detention International Human Rights Standards +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulrahim Rahim

Appellant

Hossain Kamal

Appellant

Zakir Hossain

Appellant

Harun Mohammed

Appellant

Mohammed Salla Uddin

Appellant

Abdul Shamol

Appellant

Mahbub Alom

Appellant

Toyobur Rahman

Appellant

Suman Chudhury

Appellant

Mustafi Gurraman

Appellant

Eunice Hayford

Appellant

Zaiur Rahman

Appellant

Md Alap

Appellant

Norul Alom

Appellant

Mahemintu Mintu

Appellant

The Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of the appellants, all foreign nationals, pending deportation was lawful under section 34(1) of the Immigration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Director-General of Home Affairs made a valid determination of the manner and place of detention as required by section 34(1) of the Immigration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' rights under the Constitution and international law were violated during their detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the detention of the appellants was unlawful because the respondent failed to prove that the Director-General had made a determination regarding the manner and place of detention as required by section 34(1) of the Immigration Act. The court found that the principle of legality, as well as international human rights standards, require that such a determination be made and publicly proclaimed to ensure certainty and compliance with constitutional norms. The respondent's reliance on the use of police stations, prisons, and the Lindela facility without evidence of a specific determination was insufficient. The court rejected the respondent's arguments...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The detention of each appellant was declared unlawful. Damages awarded to each appellant according to the duration of detention. Costs awarded to appellants, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the respondent is ordered to pay the appellants' costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is substituted by an order declaring the detention of each appellant unlawful.