Sattar and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (144037/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 5 (9 January 2025)

Sattar and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (144037/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 5 (9 January 2025)

The court found that the applicants, despite delays and procedural irregularities, have a prima facie right to apply for asylum under the Refugees Act. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in both domestic and international law, protects them from deportation until their asylum applications are determined....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Abdus Sattar; Applicant: Mainuddin Howlader Maheen; Applicant: Md Sakib Mia; Applicant: Rubel Mia; Applicant: Shammim Hoosain; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Director-General of Home Affairs
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 January 2025
Case Number
144037/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before the High Court
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; Form 23 notices suspended; respondents interdicted from detaining or deporting applicants pending asylum applications; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Andrews
Legal Topics
Refugees Act, Non Refoulement, Urgent Interdict, Immigration Act, Right to Freedom and Security, Good Cause Requirement
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Refugees Act Non Refoulement Urgent Interdict Immigration Act Right to Freedom and Security +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdus Sattar

Applicant

Mainuddin Howlader Maheen

Applicant

Md Sakib Mia

Applicant

Rubel Mia

Applicant

Shammim Hoosain

Applicant

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Director-General of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief suspending Form 23 notices pending asylum applications.
  2. 2 Whether the Department of Home Affairs complied with the Refugees Act and Immigration Act in issuing Form 23 notices.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of non-refoulement protects the applicants from deportation prior to determination of asylum applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, despite delays and procedural irregularities, have a prima facie right to apply for asylum under the Refugees Act. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in both domestic and international law, protects them from deportation until their asylum applications are determined. The Form 23 notices were issued without affording the applicants the required interview to show good cause for their illegal entry or stay, as mandated by section 21(1B) of the Refugees Amendment Act and Regulation 8. The delay in expressing intention to seek asylum does not disqualify the applicants, and any prejudice to the respondents is outweighed by the irreparable harm the...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; Form 23 notices suspended; respondents interdicted from detaining or deporting applicants pending asylum applications; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The forms and service provided for in the Uniform Rules of Court are dispensed with and the matter is heard as urgent.
  • Form 23 notices issued to each applicant are suspended on condition that applicants present themselves to the nearest Refugee Reception Office within 30 days to arrange an interview as envisaged in regulation 8(3) and (4), read with section 21(1B).