South Africa Case Law

Mohamud and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another

Mohamud and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 333; 037352/2023 (11 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

037352/2023

The court found that the applicants, as asylum seekers whose judicial review applications are pending, are entitled to automatic extensions of their asylum seeker permits in terms of the Refugees Act and the Constitutional Court's decision in Saidi v Minister of Home Affairs. The Department of Home Affairs has no discretion to refuse such extensions. The risk of arrest and deportation without valid permits constitutes sufficient urgency, as deportation would render the pending judicial review applications academic and undermine the non-refoulement purpose of the Refugees Act. The application…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act
• Non Refoulement
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Judicial Review
• Urgent Interim Relief

Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Saidi and Others (294/2016)

Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Saidi and Others (294/2016) [2017] ZASCA 40; 2017 (4) SA 435 (SCA); [2017] 2 All SA 755 (SCA) (30 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

294/2016

Judges

Maya, Majiedt, Swain, Gorven, Mbatha

Section 22(3) of the Refugees Act empowers the Refugee Reception Officer to extend asylum seeker permits even after internal remedies have been exhausted, including during the pendency of judicial review proceedings. This interpretation is supported by the statutory language, the broader context of the Act, constitutional values, and international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement. The discretion to extend permits remains with the Refugee Reception Officer and is not a mandatory duty; each application must be considered on its merits. The respondents did not establish…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act Interpretation
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Judicial Review
• Non Refoulement
• Legitimate Expectation
• Constitutional Rights

Saidi and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (17770/15)

Saidi and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (17770/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 201 (26 November 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17770/15

Judge

Nuku

The court held that section 22(3) of the Refugees Act allows extension of asylum seeker permits after internal remedies are exhausted and set aside the refusal.

• Refugees Act
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Judicial Review
• Legitimate Expectation
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Statutory Interpretation

Bahamboula and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (1476/14)

Bahamboula and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (1476/14) [2014] ZAWCHC 69; 2014 (9) BCLR 1021 (WCC) (8 May 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1476/14

The High Court dismissed an urgent challenge to a Home Affairs memorandum on asylum-seeker permit extensions, finding the dispute moot after policy changes.

• Refugees Act
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Mootness
• Declaratory Relief
• Government Policy Implementation
• Asylum-seeker-permits

Mahmood and Others v S (A1031/11)

Mahmood and Others v S (A1031/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 15 (29 February 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1031/11

Judge

TJ Kruger

The court found that the interests of justice are best served by granting bail to the appellants with stringent conditions. The investigating officer did not provide convincing reasons for refusing bail and conceded that the case against the appellants could only be proven with further evidence. The evidence of the immigration official was not sufficiently reliable to justify continued detention, as the section 212 documents indicated the appellants held asylum seeker permits. The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Bula supports the right of asylum seekers to be released subject to the Act…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Flight Risk
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Schedule 7 Offences

Bhati v Minister of Home Affairs (500/09)

Bhati v Minister of Home Affairs (500/09) [2009] ZAECPEHC 16 (28 April 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

500/09

Judge

P C van der Byl

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for review of the respondent's decision in his founding affidavit, and any attempt to do so in reply was irregular. The evidence showed that the applicant's application for extension of his temporary residence permit was considered, and he was given an opportunity to provide proof of compliance with legal requirements, which he failed to do. The temporary residence permit was issued fraudulently, and the applicant was unlawfully in the country. The order to leave the country did not constitute administrative action under PAJA, as it…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Act
• Asylum Seeker Permits
• Administrative Action
• Review Of Administrative Decisions
• Procedural Fairness