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.
Lembore and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2023-097427, 2023-097292, 2023-097111, 2023-097076,2023-100081, 2023-100526) [2024] ZAGPJHC 102; [2024] 2 All SA 113 (GJ); 2024 (5) SA 251 (GJ) (8 February 2024)
The court held that the applicants' detention for contravening the Immigration Act is lawful and does not violate the non-refoulement protection in section 2 of the Refugees Act. The mere expression of intention to apply for asylum does not trigger protection; rather, applicants must show good cause for their illegal entry and stay before being permitted to apply for asylum. The amendments to the Refugees Act and its regulations require a two-stage process: first, showing good cause, and then applying for asylum. The Constitutional Court's decision in Ashebo is binding and confirms that deten…
Source excerpt
Malinga and Others v Director-General of Home Affairs and Another (73595/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1233 (16 November 2016)
The High Court held that the first applicant’s detention pending deportation was lawful under the Immigration Act and refused interim release.
Power v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2013/14516) [2013] ZAGPJHC 146 (13 June 2013)
The applicant failed to establish entitlement to refugee status or an asylum seeker permit due to his conviction for armed robbery, which excludes him under section 4(1)(b) of the Refugees Act. The court found no evidence that he voiced an intention to apply for asylum during detention or that he met the requirements for such status. However, the applicant's detention exceeded the statutory maximum of 30 days without a court warrant, rendering it unlawful under section 34 of the Immigration Act. The respondents' difficulties in identification did not justify ignoring statutory requirements. T…
Source excerpt
Otshudi v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (12/05018) [2012] ZAGPJHC 15 (23 February 2012)
The court held that, after exhausting Refugees Act remedies, the applicant had to be dealt with under the Immigration Act and refused release and re-issuance of a permit.
Ulde v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (320/08) [2009] ZASCA 34; 2009 (4) SA 522 (SCA) ; 2009 (8) BCLR 840 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 332 (SCA) (31 March 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the detention of the appellant was unlawful because the immigration officer failed to exercise proper discretion as required by section 34(1) of the Immigration Act. The officer acted under a mistaken belief that detention was obligatory, applying a blanket policy rather than considering the individual circumstances, including the fact that the appellant had been released on bail by a magistrate. The officer did not apply his mind to the relevant facts or legal principles, rendering the detention arbitrary and in violation of the constitutional right to l…
Source excerpt
Explore more
