Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs (CCT02/18) [2018] ZACC 52; 2019 (3) BCLR 383 (CC); 2019 (2) SA 329 (CC) (20 December 2018)

Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs (CCT02/18) [2018] ZACC 52; 2019 (3) BCLR 383 (CC); 2019 (2) SA 329 (CC) (20 December 2018)

The Constitutional Court held that delay in seeking asylum does not bar an applicant from accessing the asylum process under the Refugees Act. The only grounds for exclusion are those set out in section 4, and the Refugee Status Determination Officer alone is authorised to assess the merits of an application. Crimes committed within South Africa do not trigger exclusion under section 4(1)(b). The Immigration Act must be read in harmony with the Refugees Act, and the latter prevails in matters of asylum. The Supreme Court of Appeal was bound by its own precedents, which consistently held that delay is not an absolute bar to seeking asylum. The principle of non-refoulement, as enshrined in...

Citation
[2018] ZACC 52
Parties
Applicant: Alex Ruta; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Case Number
CCT02/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following High Court and SCA Decisions
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal succeeds with costs. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Judges
Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Goliath AJ, Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ, Theron J
Legal Topics
Refugees Act Interpretation, Non Refoulement, Delay in Asylum Application, Statutory Exclusion, Precedent Stare Decisis
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugees Act Interpretation Non Refoulement Delay in Asylum Application Statutory Exclusion Precedent Stare Decisis

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Ruta

Applicant

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following High Court and SCA Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does delay in seeking asylum bar an applicant from accessing the asylum process under the Refugees Act?
  2. 2 Does section 4(1)(b) of the Refugees Act exclude applicants convicted of crimes committed within South Africa?
  3. 3 How must the Immigration Act and Refugees Act be harmonised in the context of asylum applications?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that delay in seeking asylum does not bar an applicant from accessing the asylum process under the Refugees Act. The only grounds for exclusion are those set out in section 4, and the Refugee Status Determination Officer alone is authorised to assess the merits of an application. Crimes committed within South Africa do not trigger exclusion under section 4(1)(b). The Immigration Act must be read in harmony with the Refugees Act, and the latter prevails in matters of asylum. The Supreme Court of Appeal was bound by its own precedents, which consistently held that delay is not an absolute bar to seeking asylum. The principle of non-refoulement, as enshrined in...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal succeeds with costs. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.