De Saude Sadat Darbandi Immigration Attorneys Inc v Acting Provincial Manager: Western Cape Department of Home Affairs and Others (17216/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 572 (9 December 2025)

Case Note

De Saude Sadat Darbandi Immigration Attorneys Inc v The Acting Provincial Manager, Western Cape: Department of Home Affairs
Case no: 17216/2023
Date: 9 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications concerning the enforcement of court orders, particularly in the context of administrative law and the rights of individuals to access services provided by the state. The judgment provides clarification on the enforceability of declaratory orders and addresses issues of compliance and contempt of court within the framework of the South African legal system. The court’s decision on whether declaratory orders can give rise to contempt proceedings is particularly noteworthy, as it reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the constitutional rights of citizens.

Cases Cited

1. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC)
2. Minister of Tourism and Others v Afriforum NPC and Another 2023 (6) BCLR 752 (CC)
3. R v R 2023 (9) BCLR 1126 (CC)
4. Municipal Manager, OR Tambo Municipality and Another v Ndabeni 2023 (4) SA 421 (CC)
5. Eke v Parsons 2016 (3) SA 37 (CC)
6. Finishing Touch 163 (Pty) Ltd v BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa Ltd and Others 2013 (2) SA 204 (SCA)
7. Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC)
8. Disability Economic Empowerment Trust v Independent Development Trust and Another (2025/183503) [2025] ZAECMKHC 91

Legislation Cited

1. South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995
2. Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992
3. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Rules of Court Cited

• None specified in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment stems from an application where the applicant, a law firm specializing in immigration matters, sought a declaratory order asserting that certain officials from the Department of Home Affairs breached a prior court order by refusing to accept applications for late birth registration. The court examined issues surrounding contempt of court and the enforceability of declaratory orders, ultimately ruling that while there was a failure to comply with the previous court order, this did not amount to contempt.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in the judgment include: 1. Whether the case was moot given the acceptance of applications post-judgment. 2. Whether a declaratory order issued by the court can serve as a basis for contempt proceedings. 3. Whether the respondents acted in contempt of court regarding the enforcement of said declaratory order.

Held

The court held that the respondents failed to comply with the order granted by Nziweni J but found that their non-compliance did not constitute contempt of court. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, reflecting a pragmatic approach to shared successes in the application.

THE FACTS

The case originated from a previous judgment by Nziweni J, which directed the Department of Home Affairs to accept applications for late birth registrations, citing unlawful gatekeeping behavior by officials. The applicant, De Saude Sadat Darbandi Immigration Attorneys Inc, represented clients whose applications had been unjustly refused. Notable among the affected individuals was L[...] M[...], a minor whose citizenship documentation had not been registered, rendering him effectively stateless and unable to access basic rights and services. The refusal by Home Affairs officials to accept applications led to this further application, aimed at enforcing compliance with the prior order and holding the Department accountable for its actions.

THE ISSUES

The court needed to determine whether the situation presented was moot, assessing if a live dispute still existed following the submission of delayed applications by the respondents. Additionally, the court examined the nature of the declaratory order by Nziweni J to ascertain if it imposed enforceable obligations on the respondents and whether their failure to comply amounted to contempt of court.

ANALYSIS

The court’s reasoning highlighted the distinction between mootness and the nature of the legal obligations arising from the declaratory order. It firmly rejected the notion that the case was moot since the refusal of officials to accept applications remained a live issue. The court underscored the importance of declaratory orders in the legal landscape and their role not just in clarifying legal rights but in ensuring compliance with court mandates. The ruling also applied established principles of statutory interpretation to analyze Nziweni J’s order, concluding that it possessed an implied positive duty for the respondents to cease unlawful conduct.

The court further emphasized that compliance with court orders is not merely formalistic; compliance must be understood in spirit to promote public confidence in the judicial system. Despite the findings that the respondents did not comply, the court ultimately ruled that the non-compliance did not equate to contempt as it was not proven that their failure was wilful or mala fide, illustrating a discerning application of contempt principles.

REMEDY

The court granted a declaratory order affirming that the respondents had failed to comply with the Nziweni J order. However, the non-compliance was not classified as contempt of court. Each party was directed to pay their respective costs, indicating a balanced approach to the circumstances arising from the litigation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principles established or acknowledged in this case include: 1. Declaratory Orders: The court recognized that declaratory orders can impose substantive duties on parties, even if they appear to be merely declarative. 2. Contempt of Court: The court clarified that non-compliance with a court order does not automatically result in contempt; rather, it must be established that the non-compliance was wilful and mala fide. 3. Mootness: The judgment explores the parameters of mootness in legal proceedings, determining that a case may not be moot if a tangible dispute remains, regardless of subsequent events.

Overall, this case reinforces the importance of adherence to court orders and the judicial system’s role in maintaining accountability for public administration.