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
Alnajar v Director General, Department Home Affairs and Others (2025/109528) [2025] ZAGPJHC 748 (28 July 2025)
Urgent application for release from detention at Lindela was dismissed after the court found the applicant was a prohibited person under the Immigration Act.
Lu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2023-034681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 181 (26 February 2025)
The court found that the Minister's decision to refuse to uplift the applicant's status as a prohibited person was administrative action reviewable under PAJA. The Minister failed to consider relevant factors, including the applicant's innocence, his long-standing lawful residence, family circumstances, and the risk to his minor child's status. The respondents did not provide sufficient evidence of fraud or conduct a proper investigation. The Minister's reasons merely mirrored those of the Director-General and did not demonstrate meaningful consideration of the applicant's representations. Th…
Source excerpt
Omotoso v Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs and Another (1305/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 42 (11 June 2024)
The High Court reviewed and set aside Home Affairs decisions declaring the applicant a prohibited person, but refused substitution and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Klemenc v Head of Immigration Inspectorate and Others (18669/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 381 (17 April 2024)
The High Court held that the applicant’s prohibition under section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act was administrative action and set it aside.
Bihombel and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (9940/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 72 (6 March 2024)
The court found that the initial decisions by officials of the Department of Home Affairs declaring the applicants prohibited persons under section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act were administrative actions as defined by PAJA. These decisions were made without affording the applicants prior notice, a fair hearing, or adequate reasons, and without conducting a proper investigation into their alleged complicity in obtaining fraudulent documents. The applicants provided credible evidence of their innocence and lack of knowledge regarding the fraudulent nature of the documents. The Department fa…
Source excerpt
Arthur v Director General, Home Affairs (17549/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 198 (10 August 2023)
High Court review of a refusal to lift prohibited-person status under the Immigration Act. The decision was set aside because a material factual error affected the reasoning.
De Beer and Another v Director General, Home Affairs and Another (049991/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 711 (19 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to suspend a prohibited-person declaration under the Immigration Act, finding no urgency and no basis to bypass internal remedies.
A.K and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2693/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 52; [2023] 2 All SA 349 (WCC); 2023 (3) SA 538 (WCC) (10 March 2023)
The court found that the Director General failed to properly exercise discretion under section 29(2) of the Immigration Act by not considering all relevant facts, especially the best interests of the minor children. The DG focused solely on the applicant's possession of a fraudulent visa, disregarding her explanation and the lack of evidence of complicity. The DG also failed to consider the impact of deportation on the children, the disruption of the family unit, and the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to children. The decision was irrational and unreasonable, as it ignored…
Source excerpt
Masuku v Minister, Department of Home Affairs and Others [2020] ZAMPMBHC 4; 02/2020 (6 March 2020)
The court found that the declaration of Ms. Masuku as a prohibited person was made by Home Affairs, not the immigration officer, and that the officer acted within his administrative function. Ms. Masuku was given an opportunity to be heard through her affidavit, and the reasons for the declaration were provided in writing. Although she was not given formal notice of her right to appeal or review, the court held that, given her legal qualifications and representation, she was not prejudiced by this omission. The court determined that the requirements of procedural fairness under PAJA are conte…
Source excerpt
Ekene v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2013/13550) [2013] ZAGPJHC 141 (13 June 2013)
The applicant, although encountered in violation of the Immigration Act and found in possession of a fraudulent permit, expressed his intention to apply for asylum through his attorneys while in detention. Regulation 2(2) of the Refugees Act entitles such persons to be issued with a temporary permit and to remain lawfully in South Africa for 14 days to approach a Refugee Reception Office. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bula confirmed that the intention to apply for asylum need not be expressed immediately upon entry, and detention pending deportation is unlawful once such intention is communi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
