|
Title
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Date
|
|
Leave to appeal denied: no reasonable prospects or compelling reasons; contractor’s payment‑complaint and termination arguments fail.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – section 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act – test: reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons. Construction law – JBCC contract – employer’s alleged late/non‑payment; reciprocity and enforcement of penalty clauses; termination and repudiation. Judicial duty of consideration – application of Vodacom v Makate; holistic assessment of reasons.
|
Northern Cape
|
Judgment |
31 October 2025 |
|
Reported
An illegal foreigner’s expression of intent to seek asylum triggers the Refugees Act and ends lawful section 34 detention.
Immigration law; Refugees Act and non‑refoulement; trigger for application — expression of intention; lawfulness of section 34 detention extinguished on intention to apply; Regulation 8(3) read as part of asylum inquiry; Regulation 8(4) ultra vires and pro non scripto; interplay of Ruta and Abore.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
14 March 2023 |
|
Review of SCRA withdrawal of refugee status dismissed due to misleading submissions and failure to justify procedural delay.
Refugee law – withdrawal of refugee status under s36 read with s5(1)(e) – review confined to administrative record – PAJA condonation – misrepresentation/irrelevant country evidence – procedural fairness.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
14 February 2022 |
|
Reported
An aspirant asylum seeker who expresses intent must be afforded an opportunity to apply; non‑refoulement prevails despite amendments.
Refugee law — applicability of Refugees Amendment Act (2017) and new Regulations — interaction with section 2 non‑refoulement; whether an illegal foreigner who expresses an intention to apply for asylum must be afforded the opportunity to apply; effect of delay in evincing intention; requirement for immigration officer interview and showing good cause for lack of asylum transit visa; lawfulness of detention.
|
|
Judgment |
30 December 2021 |
|
Reported
Decision‑makers must assist asylum seekers, consider s 3(a) and s 3(b), and observe audi and a flexible proof standard.
Refugee law — Refugee status determinations — Duty on RRO/RSDO/Appeals Authority to assist applicants and to gather and test relevant evidence; consider both s 3(a) and s 3(b) of the Refugees Act; credibility is one factor within a flexible, inquisitorial assessment; procedural fairness (audi) requires disclosure of adverse country‑of‑origin information and opportunity to respond.
|
|
Judgment |
23 September 2021 |
|
Reported
Admission of children to public schools may not be conditioned on possession of identity documents; clauses requiring such documentation are unconstitutional.
Education law; right to basic education – unconditional right of "everyone" under section 29(1)(a); Admission Policy clauses requiring birth certificates or proof of legalisation unconstitutional; administrative action and PAJA condonation; Circular 06 of 2016 set aside; Immigration Act (ss.39, 42) to be interpreted compatibly with Bill of Rights so as not to bar basic education to undocumented children; best interests of the child and equality and dignity obligations; remedies and mandamus to admit children pending documentation.
|
Eastern Cape
|
Judgment |
12 December 2019 |
|
Reported
Delay does not bar asylum applications; Refugees Act (non‑refoulement) prevails and RSDO alone decides refugee status.
Refugee law — non‑refoulement and section 2 of the Refugees Act — primacy over conflicting statutes; access to asylum process — delay and false documents relevant to credibility but not absolute bars; Refugee Status Determination Officer sole authority to determine refugee status; exclusionary clause s4(1)(b) applies to crimes committed outside the refuge country; Immigration Act must be read harmoniously with the Refugees Act.
|
|
Judgment |
20 December 2018 |
|
Reported
A departmental directive banning asylum seekers' visa and in‑country permanent‑residence applications is ultra vires and invalid.
Immigration law — Immigration Directive 21 of 2015 — ultra vires to the extent it imposes a blanket ban on asylum seekers applying for visas; Refugee law — interplay between Refugees Act and Immigration Act — asylum seekers' eligibility to apply for permits and ability to seek exemptions under s31(2)(c); Administrative law — directives and reviewability; Regulation 23 — in‑country applications for permanent residence.
|
|
Judgment |
9 October 2018 |
|
Reported
The court held section 4(1)(b) of the Refugees Act constitutional, but found procedural unfairness in excluding the applicant.
Refugees Act – Section 4(1)(b) exclusion – Constitutionality – Procedural fairness in asylum decisions – Internal remedies and appeals.
|
|
Judgment |
28 September 2018 |
|
Reported
An RRO may extend an asylum permit pending PAJA review; majority held renewal is obligatory until review finalises.
Refugee law – interpretation of section 22(1) and (3) of the Refugees Act – whether ‘outcome’ includes PAJA judicial review – non‑refoulement and purposive/constitutional statutory interpretation – obligation v discretion of Refugee Reception Officer to extend temporary permits pending review – protection of access to court, life, dignity and freedom and security of the person.
|
|
Judgment |
24 April 2018 |
|
Reported
Biowatch protection against adverse costs applies, but belated urgent proceedings imposing undue hardship can justify a costs order.
Constitutional litigation — costs — application of Biowatch principle to procedural/ancillary matters — abuse of process, vexatious or manifestly inappropriate proceedings — judicial discretion in awarding costs.
|
|
Judgment |
1 December 2016 |
|
Reported
Detention at places not determined by the Director‑General breaches s34(1) and attracts delictual damages.
Immigration Act s34(1) — Director‑General required to determine places for detention of illegal foreigners; Detention in places not so determined unlawful; Place of detention and lawfulness of detention are inseparable; Unlawful detention gives rise to delictual damages; Appellate court will not disturb damages absent misdirection or striking disparity.
|
|
Judgment |
18 February 2016 |
|
Reported
Detention pending deportation is unlawful without a Director‑General determination of the manner and place of detention.
Immigration Act s 34(1) – detention pending deportation must be "in a manner and at a place determined by the Director‑General"; absence of such determination renders detention unlawful; principle of legality and international standards require separation of migrants from criminal detainees; damages for unlawful detention and costs awarded.
|
|
Judgment |
29 May 2015 |
|
Reported
Director‑General’s closure of a refugee reception office was unlawful, irrational and required restoration plus supervisory reporting.
Administrative law – Refugees Act – closure of Refugee Reception Office – duty to consult interested parties before deciding to close – requirement of rationality and decision‑making free of material mistake of fact; contempt/non‑compliance with court orders – appropriateness of supervisory/structural relief and reporting obligations; access to asylum procedures and protection of vulnerable asylum seekers.
|
|
Judgment |
25 March 2015 |
|
Reported
Blanket confidentiality of asylum applications is overbroad; Appeal Board must have discretion to allow media/public access.
Refugee law — confidentiality of asylum applications; Constitutional law — limitation of freedom of expression under section 36; Proportionality — overbreadth of blanket confidentiality; Remedy — declaration of invalidity suspended; interim reading‑in conferring discretion on Refugee Appeal Board.
|
|
Judgment |
27 September 2013 |
|
Reported
Closure of a refugee reception office was unlawful for irrational decision-making and failure to consult affected stakeholders.
Refugees Act – establishment and closure of Refugee Reception Offices – s 8(1) consultation requirement with Standing Committee. Administrative law – whether policy-laden executive decisions constitute ‘administrative action’ under PAJA – separation of powers considerations. Doctrine of legality – rationality review requires decision-making processes to be rationally connected to statutory purpose. Procedural fairness – circumstances may require consultation with organisations with special knowledge; failure to consult can vitiate the decision. Remedy – setting aside of unlawful decision and remittal for reconsideration rather than direct judicial imposition of policy outcome.
|
|
Judgment |
27 September 2013 |
|
Reported
Respondents must declare and fill both educator and non-educator school post establishments to protect learners’ right to basic education.
Education law – s100(1)(b) intervention – national executive assumes provincial powers and obligations; Public Service Act and Employment of Educators Act – determination of educator and non-educator post establishments; Schools Act s20 – governing bodies’ role; Norms and Standards – requirement for adequate non-teaching personnel; State duty to respect, protect and fulfil right to basic education; obligation to declare and fill budgeted posts.
|
Eastern Cape
|
Judgment |
3 July 2012 |
|
Reported
The applicant cannot be extradited or deported to face a real risk of the death penalty absent a written assurance against execution.
Constitutional law – extradition/deportation – right to life and prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – S v Makwanyane and Mohamed require written assurance that death penalty will not be imposed or carried out before removal; deportation cannot circumvent this obligation; international law cannot justify conduct inconsistent with the Constitution.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
22 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Arrest under s34 is permissible without prior s8 review, but detention and deportation were unlawful for failure to comply with mandatory warrants and procedures.
Immigration law – section 8 v section 34 – review/appeal procedure not a precondition to arrest under s34; Detention/deportation – compliance with Regulation 28 and Forms (warrants for detention and removal) and prompt written notification required; Disguised extradition/non-refoulement – high evidentiary threshold; Enforced disappearance (Rome Statute) – not established; Contempt – effect of court order and amended order; Onus on state to prove lawfulness of detention/deportation.
|
|
Judgment |
31 March 2009 |
|
Reported
A chaotic, over-inclusive appeal record justified striking the matter from the roll and ordering the attorney to pay wasted costs de bonis propriis.
Court procedure – appeal record – inclusion of irrelevant documents and failure to prepare core bundle; Practice note certifying entire record – breach of rules; Attorney’s conduct – personal liability for wasted costs de bonis propriis; Public interest considerations – balancing defective record against importance of issues (dissent).
|
|
Judgment |
27 November 2008 |
|
Reported
Whether refugees may be excluded from private security registration and how s23(6) exemptions must be applied.
Constitutional law – Equality (s9) – Whether excluding non-citizen refugees from registration as private security service providers constitutes unfair discrimination; Administrative law – PAJA – refusal to register/withdrawal of registration as administrative action; Statutory interpretation – s23(6) discretion on ‘good cause shown’ and its role in tempering s23(1)(a); Refugee law – obligations under 1951 Convention and Refugees Act regarding right to seek employment; Remedies – duty to inform applicants and to consider exemptions.
|
|
Judgment |
12 December 2006 |
|
Reported
Port-of-entry detainees have constitutional protection; s34(8) requires reasonable suspicion and 30-day judicial oversight.
Constitutional law — standing — public-interest standing for NGOs; Immigration law — ports of entry and detention — s34(8) requires reasonable suspicion before detention; Rights — sections 12 and 35(2) apply to all persons physically inside the Republic; Limitation and remedy — read-in 30-day judicial oversight for ship detentions (extension up to 90 days).
|
|
Judgment |
9 March 2004 |
|
Reported
Human rights and fundamental freedoms - Bill of Rights- access to healthcare - the availability and affordability of medical services, medication, and treatment for HIV positive mothers and their unborn children
|
|
Judgment |
4 April 2002 |
|
Reported
The applicant's confirmation failed: regulations are not Acts of Parliament and the High Court order was too vague to confirm.
Constitutional procedure – section 172(2) confirmation – declarations of invalidity must target an Act of Parliament, provincial Act or conduct of the President; regulations are subordinate instruments and not "Acts of Parliament" for confirmation purposes; judicial orders declaring invalidity must specify the statutory provisions or executive conduct impugned; overly vague or mandamus-style orders cannot be confirmed.
|
|
Judgment |
8 October 2001 |
|
Reported
Human rights and fundamental freedoms - Bill of Rights - violation of the right to equality, human dignity and fair labour practices
|
|
Judgment |
28 September 2000 |
|
Reported
Section 25(9)(b) read with ss26(3) and (6) unjustifiably permits refusals that infringe spouses’ constitutional dignity and right to cohabit; declaration suspended with interim relief.
Immigration law — Interpretation of s25(9)(b) — Temporary residence permits must be valid at time of grant — Administrative discretion under ss26(3),(6) — Legislative omission as to factors for refusal — arbitrary limitation of constitutional right to dignity/cohabitation — declaration of invalidity suspended with interim mandamus directing officials not to refuse/extend permits absent good cause.
|
|
Judgment |
7 June 2000 |
|
Reported
A regulation excluding non‑citizens from permanent teaching posts unfairly discriminates against permanent residents and is unconstitutional.
Equality — Discrimination — Citizenship as an unspecified ground — Differentiation on citizenship can impair dignity and be unfair; protection of citizens' employment does not justify excluding permanent residents; subordinate regulations cannot be read to neutralise unconstitutional discrimination.
|
|
Judgment |
26 November 1997 |