Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Refugee

13 documents
Advanced search
Filters
Refugee
  • Filters
  • Years
  • Topics
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
13 documents
Title
Jurisdiction
Date
B A v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2023] ZACC 16 (12 June 2023)
Reported
Section 12(1) of the Constitution — principle of non-refoulement — section 49(1) and 34 of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 — illegal foreigner’s intention to apply for asylum — lawfulness of detention
 Judgment 12 June 2023
S A v Minister of Home Affairs and Another; S J v Minister of Home Affairs and Another; B I v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 178 (14 March 2023)
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
A K and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2693/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 24 (10 March 2023)
Reported
DG’s refusal to uplift prohibition was irrational for failing to consider victim‑of‑fraud evidence and the children’s best interests.
Immigration — s29(1) strict liability versus s29(2) discretion to uplift prohibition; administrative law — irrationality and failure to consider relevant factors; children’s rights — paramountcy of best interests in immigration decisions; substitution of administrative decision where remittal inappropriate.
 Western Cape Judgment 10 March 2023
C N and Others v Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs and Others (75188/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1185 (14 February 2022)
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
Somali Association of South Africa and Others v Refugee Appeal Board and Others (585/2020) [2021] ZASCA 124 (23 September 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
Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Somali Association of South Africa Eastern Cape (SASA EC) and Another (831/2013) [2015] ZASCA 35 (25 March 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
Somali Association of South Africa and Others v Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism and Others (48/2014) [2014] ZASCA 143 (26 September 2014)
Reported
Asylum seekers and refugees lawfully present may apply for trading licences; closures under valid permits are unlawful.
Refugee and asylum-seeker rights – right to seek employment and self-employment – interaction of s22 Constitution and s27(f) Refugees Act – Lebowa Business Act, Businesses Act and municipal land-use scheme do not bar non-citizens from applying for trading licences – closures and confiscations under policing operations unlawful – dignity and international obligations considered.
 Judgment 26 September 2014
K E v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (69/2012) [2012] ZASCA 31 (28 March 2012)
Reported
An illegal foreigner who indicates an intention to seek asylum is entitled to a 14‑day transit permit and protection from deportation.
Immigration law – interaction with refugee law – regulation 2(2) of Refugee Regulations – entitlement to 14‑day asylum transit permit where an illegal foreigner indicates intention to apply for asylum. Refugee law – application after arrest – once intention to apply is evinced, protection of Refugees Act (including s 21(4) and s 22) applies and bars deportation while application is pending. Administrative law – delay in applying for asylum – mere delay is not a statutory ground to refuse an otherwise meritorious asylum claim. Procedural – declaratory relief as to lawfulness of initial arrest declined where not sought and similar issues decided in prior cases.
 Judgment 28 March 2012
Discovery Health Limited v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2877/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 1 (28 March 2008)
A foreign national without a valid work permit can be an "employee" under the LRA, so the CCMA may have jurisdiction.
Labour law – definition of "employee" (s 213 LRA) – whether dependent on valid common law contract. Immigration law – s 38(1) and s 49 – criminal sanction for employing foreign nationals without permit but no express contractual nullity. Constitutional law – s 23 right to fair labour practices and interpretive obligations (s 39(2), s 233) – purposive interpretation favouring protection of workers. International law – ILO conventions and migrant worker instruments relevant to interpreting labour protections for irregular/unauthorised workers. Administrative law – review standard: whether Commissioner's decision was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
 Gauteng Judgment 28 March 2008
Union of Refugee Women and Others v Director: Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (CCT 39/06) [2006] ZACC 23 (12 December 2006)
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
Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2004] ZACC 12 (9 March 2004)
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
Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Watchenuka and Others (10/2003) [2003] ZASCA 142 (28 November 2003)
Reported
A blanket prohibition on asylum-seekers' work and study is unlawful; the Standing Committee must assess individual cases.
Refugees Act — power to determine conditions of asylum-seeker permits (s 11(h)) — Minister's regulations beyond power — blanket prohibition on employment and study unlawful as unjustified limitation of dignity (s 10) and education (s 29) — remedy: remit to Standing Committee to decide individual cases.
 Judgment 28 November 2003
Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2000] ZACC 8 (7 June 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