South Africa Case Law

Ngendakuriyo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (43210/2019)

Ngendakuriyo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (43210/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 210 (6 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43210/2019

Judge

Mahomed

The court found that the applicant was not afforded a procedurally fair hearing in his asylum application. The RSDO failed to consider all relevant facts, did not provide the applicant with adverse information, and did not allow a meaningful opportunity to present his case. The officer's conduct, including alleged verbal abuse and summary rejection, constituted gross irregularity. The court held that the decision must be reviewed and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing before a different RSDO to ensure independence and impartiality. Costs were awarded to the applicant as the substantially…

Source excerpt

• Refugee Status Determination
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Procedural Fairness
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Burden Of Proof

Bakala v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2024/06419)

Bakala v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2024/06419) [2024] ZAGPJHC 599 (21 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/06419

Judge

Marcus

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

• Refugee Status Determination
• Non Refoulement
• Urgent Interdict
• Unlawful Detention
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Release Pending Asylum

Ashebo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 250/22)

Ashebo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 250/22) [2023] ZACC 16; 2023 (5) SA 382 (CC); 2024 (2) BCLR 217 (CC) (12 June 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 250/22

Judges

Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Mathopo J, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, an illegal foreigner who expressed an intention to apply for asylum, must be afforded an opportunity to do so, in line with the principle of non-refoulement and established precedent. Delay in expressing intention does not bar access to the asylum process, though it may affect credibility, which is for the Refugee Status Determination Officer to assess. The legislative amendments do not override the constitutional and international obligations to protect asylum seekers. The applicant's continued detention, without reasonable steps taken by the…

Source excerpt

• Non Refoulement
• Illegal Foreigner Detention
• Refugee Status Determination
• Section 12 Rights
• Refugees Act Interpretation
• Immigration Act Application

Akimpaye and Others v Minister Of Home Affairs and Others

Akimpaye and Others v Minister Of Home Affairs and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 239; 19551/2020 (11 April 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19551/2020

Judge

BAM

The High Court dismissed a rescission application, finding the delay unexplained and the respondents’ defence to be bare legal conclusions.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Citizenship
• Procedural Unfairness
• Condonation
• Refugee Status Determination
• Rescission-of-judgment

Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021)

Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 253; 2023 (5) SA 178 (GJ) (14 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021

Judges

Sutherland DJP, Wilson J, Dodson AJ

The court held that the lawfulness of detention under section 34 of the Immigration Act is extinguished when the applicability of the Refugees Act is triggered, which occurs upon an illegal foreigner expressing a desire to apply for asylum, not only upon formal submission of an application. The Refugees Act, and specifically section 2, overrides any contrary provision in the Immigration Act or regulations. The requirement in regulation 8(3) for showing 'good cause' is part of the information-gathering process and does not constitute a condition precedent to applying for asylum. Regulation 8(4…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Detention
• Refugee Status Determination
• Non Refoulement
• Ultra Vires Regulations
• Constitutional Supremacy

Mmuonurukom v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (11599/2019)

Mmuonurukom v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (11599/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 682 (19 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11599/2019

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court dismissed an asylum seeker’s late review and condonation application, finding the PAJA review time-barred and the delay inadequately explained.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Condonation
• Refugee Status Determination
• Internal Remedies
• Late Filing Of Review
• Administrative-law

Echozama v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (51910/2021)

Echozama v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (51910/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 831 (20 December 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

51910/2021

Judge

Victor

The court declared the applicant’s detention at Lindela unlawful, ordered his release, required a temporary asylum seeker permit, and referred an official for investigation.

• Refugee Status Determination
• Detention And Release
• Temporary Asylum Permit
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Asylum
• Refugee-detention

Mafadi and Another v The Minister of Home Affairs and Another (27878/2021)

Mafadi and Another v The Minister of Home Affairs and Another (27878/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 141 (6 July 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27878/2021

Judge

Victor

The High Court found that the applicants' detention and impending deportation were unlawful as they had not been afforded a genuine opportunity to apply for asylum, nor had they validly waived their constitutional and international rights. The purported waiver was not informed or voluntary, lacking legal representation and interpretation. The Refugees Act and international conventions require that asylum seekers be protected from refoulement until their claims are properly adjudicated. The closure of refugee reception offices due to the pandemic rendered compliance with amended procedures imp…

Source excerpt

• Refugee Status Determination
• Non Refoulement
• Waiver Of Rights
• Fair Trial Rights
• Urgent Interdict
• Release From Detention

Mapingure v Chairperson standing Committee for Refugee Affairs and Others (2727/2019)

Mapingure v Chairperson standing Committee for Refugee Affairs and Others (2727/2019) [2021] ZAECPEHC 18 (30 March 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2727/2019

Judge

O H Ronaasen

High Court review of a refused asylum application failed. The court held the applicant did not meet Refugee Act criteria and found no procedural unfairness or bad faith.

• Refugee Status Determination
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Fraudulent Asylum Application
• Refugee-status-determination
• Paja-review

A.M v Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board and Others (1102/2019)

A.M v Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board and Others (1102/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 113 (28 August 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1102/2019

Judge

Le Grange

The court found that the Refugee Appeal Board was not properly constituted when it dismissed the applicant's appeal, as only one member was present, rendering the decision legally invalid. The default remedy is to remit the matter to the Board for reconsideration, as it is the specialist body designated by statute to determine refugee status. Although the applicant presented extensive evidence of persecution based on sexual orientation, much of this material was not before the Board at the time of its decision. The court held that this was not an exceptional case warranting substitution of it…

Source excerpt

• Refugee Status Determination
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Sexual Orientation Persecution
• Quorum Requirements
• Substitution On Review