Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mzoxolo v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2025-040046) [2025] ZAGPPHC 431 (5 May 2025)
An urgent bid to stop deportation failed because the applicant did not establish a prima facie right and his detention followed a conviction, not an ID-blocking decision.
Orie v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (136642/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1321 (17 December 2024)
The court protected an asylum seeker from deportation pending final determination of refugee status, but refused release from detention because it was authorised by a valid court order.
Johannesburg Fire Victims Support Group v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-120529) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1431 (7 December 2023)
The court found that the applicant, as a voluntary association acting in the public interest, had locus standi to bring the application. The magistrate's decision on detention was interlocutory and did not preclude the High Court from granting interim relief. Deporting detained fire victims before the Khampepe Commission concludes would undermine the commission's work and breach section 6 of the Provincial Commissions Act and regulation 18 of the commission's terms of reference. The requirements for an urgent interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant established a prima facie right to p…
Source excerpt
T.R.S v U.A.R and Others (2023-019086) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1225 (27 October 2023)
The court postponed a child relocation dispute, restrained the applicant’s deportation pending final determination, and discharged an earlier interdict.
Magudumana v Director of Public Prosecutions, Free State and Others (2484/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 223 (5 June 2023)
The court found that, although disguised extraditions are unlawful and would preclude South African courts from exercising jurisdiction, the facts as presented by the respondents must be accepted due to material disputes and the absence of oral evidence. The respondents' version established that the applicant was declared a prohibited immigrant by Tanzanian authorities and deported in accordance with Tanzanian law, with South African officials only facilitating her return. Crucially, the applicant did not resist or protest her removal and expressed a desire to return to South Africa to be wit…
Source excerpt
Mukonga v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (43102/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 105 (17 February 2022)
The court found that the Minister's decision to refuse the upliftment of the applicant's prohibition status was lawful, rational, and based on adequate reasons. The applicant was declared a prohibited person due to his conviction for fraud and possession of fraudulent visas, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was a victim of fraud or that his family circumstances warranted an exception. The Minister properly applied the Immigration Act and PAJA, and there was no legal basis to overturn the decision. The applicant's continued presence in South Africa was unlawful, and his arg…
Source excerpt
Mashi v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (51908/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 839 (30 December 2021)
The High Court interdicts the Home Affairs officials from deporting the applicant, finding he was denied a fair hearing before the departure notice was issued.
Tawodzera v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (10938/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 698 (1 December 2020)
The court found that the decisions to declare the applicant's permanent residence permit lapsed and to deport him were irrational and not authorised by law. The respondents failed to provide any factual or legal basis for their allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, and relied incorrectly on the amended version of section 26 of the Immigration Act rather than the version applicable when the permit was issued. The principle of legality was applicable in the circumstances, as the interests of justice required a flexible approach and there was no prejudice to the respondents. The impugned de…
Source excerpt
Wang v S (A834/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 276 (24 April 2018)
Appeal against sentence dismissed. The court held the cumulative 11-year sentence was not shockingly inappropriate and refused to interfere.
S v Blignaut and Others (CC19/2017) [2017] ZAECPEHC 55; 2018 (1) SACR 587 (ECP) (21 November 2017)
The High Court sentenced two illegal immigrants for abalone-related racketeering and Marine Living Resources offences, imposing wholly suspended terms and deportation.
Explore more
