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
Hazan v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2025/082129) [2025] ZAGPJHC 759 (29 July 2025)
Urgent application by an asylum seeker in detention dismissed. The court held he had not followed the statutory asylum process and had not shown entitlement to halt prosecution or secure release.
Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (8684/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 202 (15 May 2025)
The court found that the impugned provisions of the Refugees Act and its regulations create a threshold barrier that requires asylum seekers to justify procedural non-compliance before their applications can be assessed on the merits. This mechanism unjustifiably limits the right to non-refoulement, which is absolute under both domestic and international law, and undermines the constitutional rights of children by tying their fate to the procedural compliance of their parents. The court held that the discretion afforded to immigration and refugee status determination officers is unguided and…
Source excerpt
N.R and Others v Director General: Home Affairs and Another (21762/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 189 (5 May 2025)
The court refused exemption from exhausting internal remedies under PAJA and dismissed a review of rejected asylum decisions by Ukrainian applicants.
Sattar and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (144037/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 5 (9 January 2025)
The court found that the applicants, despite delays and procedural irregularities, have a prima facie right to apply for asylum under the Refugees Act. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in both domestic and international law, protects them from deportation until their asylum applications are determined. The Form 23 notices were issued without affording the applicants the required interview to show good cause for their illegal entry or stay, as mandated by section 21(1B) of the Refugees Amendment Act and Regulation 8. The delay in expressing intention to seek asylum does not disquali…
Source excerpt
Ziaul and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (136725/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1316 (17 December 2024)
The court found the application to be urgent due to the applicants' risk of arrest, detention, and deportation following the expiry of their permits and the respondents' failure to respond to extension requests. The respondents' inaction constitutes a failure to make a decision, which is reviewable under PAJA. The court relied on Constitutional Court authority confirming that the extension of asylum seeker permits is automatic and not subject to discretion, and that any deemed abandonment provisions are unconstitutional. The respondents are obliged to respond and extend the applicants' permit…
Source excerpt
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.
Paul v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2024/120786) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1319 (13 November 2024)
The court held that the applicant’s mere expression of intention to apply for asylum does not entitle him to release from detention. His arrest and detention for contravention of section 49(1)(a) of the Immigration Act are lawful and do not violate the non-refoulement principle in section 2 of the Refugees Act. The applicant must first show good cause for his illegal entry and stay, as required by section 21(1B) of the Refugees Act and Regulation 8(3). Only if he succeeds and lodges an asylum application may he be issued with an asylum seeker visa, which would then entitle him to remain in So…
Source excerpt
Boamah v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2024/068962) [2024] ZAGPJHC 694 (22 July 2024)
The court held that the protections of the Refugees Act, specifically Sections 21(4) and 22, apply to asylum seekers who have previously held temporary permits, even if expired, provided their applications or reviews are pending. Deportation is prohibited until finalisation of all remedies. However, where a binding order of the Magistrate's Court exists for detention and deportation, the High Court cannot override such order unless it is set aside on review or appeal. The respondents' reliance on Ashebo to justify continued detention was misplaced, as the applicants had already triggered the…
Source excerpt
Osaleye v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (061261-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 586 (28 June 2024)
The court found that the applicant, whose asylum application was rejected, remains protected by the principle of non-refoulement until his refugee status is finally determined through all available remedies, including review and appeal under the Refugees Act and judicial review. The applicant cannot be deported until this process is completed. However, the applicant's continued detention is pursuant to a valid Magistrate's Court order confirming his status as an illegal foreigner and ordering his detention and deportation. The High Court has no authority to set aside that order in these proce…
Source excerpt
Bakala v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2024/06419) [2024] ZAGPJHC 599 (21 June 2024)
The court held that the applicant, an asylum seeker detained at Lindela, is entitled to urgent relief due to the deprivation of liberty and imminent risk of deportation. The principle of non-refoulement, entrenched in section 2 of the Refugees Act and confirmed by the Constitutional Court, prohibits deportation until the asylum application is finally determined. The respondents are obliged to afford the applicant an opportunity to show good cause for his illegal entry and stay, as required by section 21 and regulation 8 of the Refugees Act. If the respondents fail to comply, the applicant mus…
Source excerpt
Explore more
