South Africa Case Law

Sibande v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1032/04)

Sibande v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1032/04) [2009] ZALC 73; (2010) 31 ILJ 441 (LC) (30 July 2009)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR1032/04

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by failing to require proof of the applicant's alleged illegal immigrant status and by accepting mere suspicion as fact. The employer did not discharge its burden of proof to show a valid and fair reason for dismissal, as no disciplinary hearing was held and no documentation or testimony from the immigration officer was presented. The process required by the Aliens Control Act to declare someone a prohibited person was not followed, and the applicant was never lawfully declared an illegal immigrant. Consequently, both…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Burden Of Proof
• Gross Irregularity
• Aliens Control Act

Sibande v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1032/04)

Sibande v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1032/04) [2009] ZALCJHB 25 (30 July 2009)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1032/04

Judge

Molahlehi

Labour Court review of a CCMA award involving dismissal for alleged illegal immigration status, with the court finding procedural and substantive unfairness.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Burden Of Proof
• Gross Irregularity
• Aliens Control Act

Littlewood and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (160/2004)

Littlewood and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (160/2004) [2005] ZASCA 10; 2006 (3) SA 474 (SCA) (22 March 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

160/2004

Judges

Howie, Navsa, Mthiyane, Nugent, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister failed to consider whether special circumstances justified exemption from section 23, and set the decision aside.

• Ministerial Discretion
• Aliens Control Act
• Judicial Review
• Special Circumstances
• Procedural Fairness
• Administrative-law

Weng and Others v Minister of Home Affairs (633/99)

Weng and Others v Minister of Home Affairs (633/99) [2003] ZANWHC 42 (31 July 2003)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

633/99

Judge

R.D. Hendricks

The High Court dismissed a review and interdict application because it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the applicants’ permit dispute.

• Jurisdiction
• Permanent Residence Permits
• Aliens Control Act
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Judicial-review
• Interdict

Ramsamy v Minister of Home Affairs (98/02)

Ramsamy v Minister of Home Affairs (98/02) [2002] ZAECHC 13 (26 April 2002)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

98/02

Judge

Froneman

The High Court dismissed an urgent application by foreign nationals challenging their detention and removal under immigration law, finding they were unlawfully in South Africa.

• Aliens Control Act
• Detention And Removal
• Temporary Residence Permit
• Procedural Fairness
• Access To Information
• Immigration-law

Chima v Minister of Home Affairs (332/2002)

Chima v Minister of Home Affairs (332/2002) [2002] ZAECHC 11 (25 April 2002)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

332/2002

Judge

Froneman

The court found that the applicant had no lawful right to remain in South Africa, having failed to comply with the conditions of his temporary residence permit and having obtained extensions fraudulently. The arrest and detention under sections 53(1) and 53(2) of the Aliens Control Act were lawful, as the applicant was not entitled to be in the country and was afforded opportunities to make representations, which he refused. The procedural attacks based on alleged bad faith, absence of a detention warrant, and lack of a hearing were rejected. The applicant's own conduct, including manipulatio…

Source excerpt

• Aliens Control Act
• Detention And Removal Of Aliens
• Procedural Fairness
• Customary Marriage Status

Booysen and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 8/01)

Booysen and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 8/01) [2001] ZACC 20; 2001 (4) SA 485 (CC); 2001 (7) BCLR 645 (CC) (4 June 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 8/01

Judges

Sachs, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Madlanga, Somyalo

Sections 26(2)(a) and 26(3)(b) of the Aliens Control Act unjustifiably limit the constitutionally protected right to dignity of South Africans and their foreign spouses by imposing requirements that disrupt family life and prevent spouses from living together and supporting each other. The requirement for foreign spouses to apply for work permits from outside South Africa and the restriction on issuing permits only to those with scarce skills are not justified under the Constitution. The High Court's declarations of invalidity are confirmed, with the suspension of invalidity for 12 months to…

Source excerpt

• Right To Dignity
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Aliens Control Act
• Family Unity
• Suspension Of Invalidity

Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others ; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others ; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT35/99)

Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others ; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others ; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT35/99) [2000] ZACC 8; 2000 (3) SA 936; 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (7 June 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT35/99

Judges

O'Regan, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Cameron

The Constitutional Court struck down section 25(9)(b) read with sections 26(3) and (6) of the Aliens Control Act for unfairly burdening foreign spouses.

• Right To Dignity
• Immigration Permits
• Aliens Control Act
• Discretionary Powers
• Family Unity
• Limitations Clause

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT10/99)

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT10/99) [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1; 2000 (1) BCLR 39 (2 December 1999)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT10/99

Judges

Ackermann, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob, Cameron

Section 25(5) of the Aliens Control Act 96 of 1991 is unconstitutional because it omits to confer immigration benefits on permanent same-sex life partners of South African residents, while granting such benefits to spouses. This constitutes unfair discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status, violating sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The limitation is not justified under section 36(1), as the exclusion does not serve a legitimate governmental interest and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. The appropriate remedy is to read in, after the word 'spouse', the words…

Source excerpt

• Equality Clause
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination
• Reading In Remedy
• Aliens Control Act
• Right To Dignity

Larbi-Odam and Others v Member of the Eexecutive Council for Education (North-West Province) and Another (CCT2/97)

Larbi-Odam and Others v Member of the Eexecutive Council for Education (North-West Province) and Another (CCT2/97) [1997] ZACC 16; 1997 (12) BCLR 1655; 1998 (1) SA 745 (26 November 1997)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 2/97

Judges

Mokgoro, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Didcott, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, O'Regan, Sachs

The Constitutional Court struck down a South African regulation barring non-citizens from permanent educator posts as unfair discrimination against permanent residents.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Citizenship And Employment
• Section 8 Equality
• Section 33 Limitation
• Educators Employment Act
• Aliens Control Act