About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 857
|
|
Shanko v Minister of Home Affairs and Another; Shambu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another; Bogala v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (32620/2021; 32621/2021; 32622/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 857 (26 July 2021)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 32620/2021
CASE
NO:
32621/2021
CASE
NO: 32622/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
DATE: 26/07/2021
IN
THE MATTERS BETWEEN :-
SHANKO
ABRAHAM
APPLICANT
And
THE
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE
DIRECTOR
GENERAL,
SECOND RESPONDENT
DEPARTMENT
OF HOME AFFAIRS
AND
SHAMBU
JAMAL
APPLICANT
And
THE
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE
DIRECTOR
GENERAL,
SECOND RESPONDENT
DEPARTMENT
OF HOME AFFAIRS
AND
BOGALA
IYOBA
APPLICANT
And
THE
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE
DIRECTOR
GENERAL,
SECOND RESPONDENT
DEPARTMENT
OF HOME AFFAIRS
JUDGMENT
Kollapen,
J
Introduction
[1]
These three matters served before me in the urgent court in the week
of the 20 July
2021 and while Mr Abraham and Mr Jamal’s matters
were argued together, the legal principles applicable to all three
matters
and the broad factual matrix relevant to each of them overlap
considerably and to that extent a single judgment dealing with all
three applications would avoid duplication and constitute an
efficient use of judicial resources.
[2]
All three applicants are nationals of Ethiopia and are currently
being held in immigration
detention pending their deportation to
Ethiopia. They entered South Africa at a place other than a port of
entry in the period
December 2019 to October 2020 and were all
arrested during the period May to June 2021 by immigration officers
and processes were
put in place for their deportation to Ethiopia.
[3]
The applicants say that they entered South Africa in fear of being
persecuted in Ethiopia,
that it was their intention to seek asylum in
South Africa, that they were unable to do so in the time they have
been here largely
due to the effects of the lockdown and that they
have a right to seek asylum and should be released from detention to
enable them
to apply for asylum. They contend that their continued
detention is unlawful given their intimation that they seek to apply
for
asylum.
[4]
The respondents oppose the relief sought and deny that the applicants
are entitled
to their release and further rely on the provisions of
the Refugees Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder to argue
that
in not complying with the peremptory requirements of the Act and
the regulations, the applicants are firstly not entitled to their
release and secondly can only make application for asylum if they
have shown good cause for their illegal entry and stay in the
country
as contemplated in the Act and Regulations.
[5]
All of the applicants seek relief in the following terms :-
“
2.
Subject to the applicant approaching the Refugee Office as
contemplated in paragraph 5 below, the First
and the Second
Respondent are interdicted from deporting unless and until his status
under the Refugee Act, 130 of 1998 as amended
by the Refugee
Amendment Act 11 of 2017 has been lawfully and finally determined.
3.
It is declared that the continued detention of the Applicant is
unlawful.
4.
The Respondents are directed to release the Applicant forthwith.
5.
It is declared, in terms of Section 2 of the Refugee Act, the
Applicant is entitled to remain
lawfully in the Republic of South
Africa for a period of 14 days, alternatively 5 days after the
refugee reception office re- opens,
in order to allow him to approach
a refugee reception office.
6.
The First and the Second Respondent are directed, upon submission by
the Applicant of his
asylum application, to accept the Applicant’s
asylum application and to issue him with a temporary asylum seeker
permit in
accordance with Section 22 of the Refugee Act, pending
finalisation of the claim,- including exhaustion of his right of
review
or appeal in terms of Chapter 3 of the Refugee Act and the
Promotion of Administration of Justice Act 3 of 2000, provided that
the applicant apply for review or appeal in terms of the time periods
afforded to him in terms of Chapter 3 of the Refugee’s
Act and
the Promotion of Administration of Justice Act 3 of 2000.”
The
positon of the respective applicants
Mr
Shanku Abraham
[6]
The applicant says he is from a small town called Tiriga in Ethiopia
and that the
ruling party is involved in the persecution of people
based on their religious and political beliefs. He says that his
father was
an active member of the opposition party he describes as
the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Unity Forum and was actively
involved
in the affairs of that party. He says that both his parents
were killed by the ruling party and that he feared for his life and
decided to flee Ethiopia in September 2020.
[7]
He made his way from Ethiopia to Mozambique and entered South Africa
illegally in
October 2020 and has been unable to access the offices
of the department of Home Affairs as those offices have been closed.
He
lived with fellow Ethiopians in Johannesburg until his arrest on
the 10 June 2021.
[8]
He says that he still seeks to make application for asylum and should
be afforded
the opportunity to do so.
Mr
Shambu Jamal
[9]
The applicant says that he lived in Ethiopia and was a member of the
opposition Ethiopia
People’s Revolutionary Party who were
active in mobilising people against the government. He says that
members of his party
were persecuted, tortured and even killed by the
ruling party and that fearing for his life he fled Ethiopia and made
his way to
Zimbabwe in September 2020 and thereafter illegally
entered South Africa in October 2020 where he has since remained.
[10]
He says he was unable to access the offices of the Home Affairs
department as they were closed
and could therefore not submit an
application for asylum. He lived in Johannesburg with fellow
Ethiopians until his arrest in May
2021 and maintains that it is
still his intention to apply for asylum in South Africa.
Mr
Bogola Iyoba
[11]
He is also from Tiriga in Ethiopia and say he was a member of the
Ethiopian Federal Democratic
Unity Forum and was actively involved in
anti- government protests. He says that the ruling party has been
persecuting members
of his party and many have been arrested and
detained. He says that he understood that the ruling party were
seeking to have him
arrested but that in around December 2019 he was
able to flee and made his way to Zimbabwe. He says that it was not
safe in Zimbabwe
for a refuges and he then made his way to South
Africa.
[12]
He does not say when he came to South Africa but that he tried to
access the offices of the department
of Home Affairs in Pretoria in
January 2020 but was told to come back in March and when he went back
in March 2020 the offices
were closed due to Covid lockdown.
[13]
He also lived with fellow Ethiopians in Johannesburg until his arrest
on the 10 June 2021. He
days that it was always his intention to seek
asylum in South African but never had the opportunity to do so and
should be afforded
such an opportunity.
The
applicable legal framework
[14]
The provisions of the Refugees Act and the Regulations promulgated
thereunder apply to the claims
and the relief sought by all of the
Applicants. In this regard a new Regulatory framework came into
operation on the 1 January
2020 in terms of Government Notice R 1707
published on the 27 December 2019 (these regulations replaced the
April 2000 regulations).
Amendments to the Act were also effected and
came into force on the 1 January 2020.
[15]
It was argued on behalf of Mr Iyoba that his application fell to be
dealt with under the April
2000 regulations as he arrived in South
Africa in December 2019 when those regulations were still in force.
[16]
The problem with this submission is that on Mr Iyoba’s version
he only sought to access
the asylum system in January 2020 and not in
December 2019 when he arrived. No explanation is offered as to why he
did not seek
to apply for asylum in December 2019. If he did, then
clearly the argument that the 2000 regulations was applicable would
have
been a compelling one.
[17]
However having elected to seek to apply in January 2020 his
application would fall to be dealt
with under the regulatory
framework that was in place when he sought to apply. To hold
otherwise, would mean that a person may
arrive in South Africa, stay
undetected for a lengthy time and then upon arrest some months or
even years later would be entitled
to rely on a legal framework no
longer in existence. This would undermine the efficacy of the law and
the legislative intent and
in addition using the current framework
would not constitute a retrospective application of the law as was
argued.
[18]
In my view all three application fall to be dealt with in terms of
the existing regulatory framework.
The
entitlement to apply for asylum
[19]
Central to the argument of the applicants is that notwithstanding
their illegal entry into South
Africa their entitlement to apply for
asylum has not and cannot be extinguished simply on account of their
illegal entry and stay
in the country.
The
relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations
The
Refugees Act No 30 of 1998
[20]
Section 4
: Exclusion from refugee status
“
(1)
An asylum seeker does not qualify for refugee status for the purposes
of this Act if a Refugee Status Determination
Officer has reason to
believe that he or she :-
……………………………
.
……………………………
.
(h)
having entered the Republic, other than through a port of entry
designated as such by the Minister in terms of section 9A of
the
Immigration Act, fails to satisfy a Refugee Status Determination
Officer that there are compelling reasons for such entry;
or
(i)
has failed to
report to the Refugee Reception Office within five days of entry into
the Republic as contemplated in section 21,
in the absence of
compelling reasons, which may include hospitalisation,
institutionalisation or any other compelling reason: Provided
that
this provision shall not apply to a person who, while being in the
Republic on a valid visa, other than a visa issued in terms
of
section 23 of the Immigration Act, applies for asylum.”
[21]
Section 21 Application for asylum
(1)
(a) Upon reporting to the Refugee Reception Office within five days
of entry into the Republic, an asylum seeker must be assisted
by an
officer designated to receive asylum seekers.
……
.
(1B)
An applicant who may not be in possession of an asylum transit visa
as contemplated in section 23 of the Immigration Act, must
be
interviewed by an immigration officer to ascertain whether valid
reasons exist as to why the applicant is not in possession
of such
visa.
……
.
(4)
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no proceedings may be
instituted or continued against any person in respect of his
or her
unlawful entry into or presence within the Republic if-
(a)
such person has applied for asylum in terms of subsection (1), until
a decision has been made on the application and, where
applicable,
such application has been reviewed in terms of section 24A or where
the applicant exercised his or her right to appeal
in terms of
section 24B; or
(b)
such person has been granted asylum.”
[22]
Section 22 : Asylum seeker visa
“
(1)
An asylum seeker whose application in terms of section 21 (1) has not
been adjudicated, is entitled to be issued with an asylum
seeker
visa, in the prescribed form, allowing the applicant to sojourn in
the Republic temporarily, subject to such conditions
as may be
imposed, which are not in conflict with the Constitution or
international law.”
[23]
The Regulations
Asylum
transit visa
“
7.
Any person
who intends to apply for asylum must declare his or her intention,
while at a port of entry, before entering the Republic
and provide
his or her biometrics and other relevant data as required, …….
Application
for asylum
“
8.
(1) An
application for asylum in terms of section 21 of the Act must―
(a)
be made in person by the applicant upon reporting to a Refugee
Reception Office or on a date allocated to such a person upon
reporting to the Refugee Reception Office;
……
(c)
be submitted together with―
(i) a valid asylum
transit visa issued at a port of entry in terms of section 23 of the
Immigration Act, or under permitted circumstances,
a valid visa
issued in terms of the Immigration Act;
…
(3)
Any person who
upon application for asylum fails at a Refugee Reception Office to
produce a valid visa issued in terms of the Immigration
Act must
prior to being permitted to apply for asylum, show good cause for his
or her illegal entry or stay in the Republic as
contemplated in
Article 31(1) of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees.
(4) A judicial officer
must require any foreigner appearing before the court, who indicates
his or her intention to apply for asylum,
to show good cause as
contemplated in sub-regulation (3).”
Analysis
[24]
What is clear from the Act and the Regulations is that while an
aspirant asylum seeker is required
to indicate an intention to do so
at a port of entry, the Act and the regulations provide a clear
mechanism for someone who has
not arrived at a port of entry to be
able to nevertheless have the opportunity to declare such an
intention at a later stage and
thereupon may be afforded the
opportunity to apply for asylum.
[25]
Section 4(1)(h) and (i) which deals with the exclusion from refugee
status both provide for an
asylum seeker to advance compelling
reasons to either the Refugee Reception Office or the Refugee Status
Determining Officer for
the failure to either having entered the
country illegally or to report to a Refugee Reception Office within 5
days.
[26]
In addition Regulation 8(3) also provides for an asylum seeker to
show good cause before being
entitled to apply for asylum for their
illegal entry or stay in the country.
[27]
The totality of the effect of these provisions is that :-
a)
They do not create a
bar to an application for asylum on the part of those who have either
entered South Africa illegally and remain
here illegally or those who
may have entered legally but whose stay has for some reason become
illegal. That this should be so
is consistent with both the letter
and spirit of the 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the status
of Refugees which in Article
31 reads as follows :-
“
1.
The contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of
their illegal entry or presence,
on refugees who, coming directly
from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the
sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without
authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the
authorities and show
good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Indeed the Constitutional
Court in
Ruta v Minster of Home Affairs (CCT02/18)
[2018] ZACC
52
confirmed that to be the state of our law when it said so
in the following terms:-
“
The
Refugee’s Act makes plain principled provision for the
reception and management of asylum seeker applications. The
provisions
of the Immigration Act must thus be read together with and
in harmony with those of the
Refugees Act. This
can readily be done.
Though an asylum seeker who is in the country unlawfully is an
“illegal foreigner” under the Immigration
Act, and liable
to deportation, the specific provisions of the
Refugees Act intercede
to provide imperatively that, notwithstanding that status, his or her
claim to asylum must first be processed under the
Refugees Act. Th
is
is the meaning of Section 2 of the Act, and it is the meaning of the
two statutes when read together to harmonise with each other.”
Therefore, on this aspect
I am satisfied that on what is before me and regard being had to what
each of the applicants say is what
compelled them to leave Ethiopia ,
they should not be automatically excluded from accessing the
provisions of the Act.
b)
They create different
procedures and entitlements for those who wish to apply for asylum
and as the applicants correctly point out
create a separate route for
those who like all of the applicants have entered the country
illegally. Both Section 21 as well as
Regulation 7 and 8 provide that
an applicant for asylum must present a valid transit visa or other
visa when approaching the Refugee
reception office but that the
failure to do so will not be fatal to their attempts to apply for
asylum.
c)
Section 4 of the Act
would exclude someone in this position obtaining refugee status if
they were unable to provide compelling reasons
for either their
failure to enter South Africa through a designated port of entry
and/or failing to report to a Refugee Reception
Office within 5 days
of their arrival. None of the applicants have made application for
asylum so the opportunity to provide such
compelling reasons may yet
arise in the future and it therefore cannot be said that they are
excluded from consideration for refugee
status.
d)
Regulation 8 (3)
however provides that those who a fail at a Refugee Reception Office
to produce a valid visa issued in terms of
the Immigration Act must
prior to being permitted to apply for asylum, show good cause for his
or her illegal entry or stay in
the Republic as contemplated in
Article 31(1 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees. I have already
made reference to Article 31 and
it appears that the import of Regulation 8(3) is that the
establishment of good cause (in defined
cases) must precede the
submission of an application for asylum. Simply put if an applicant
who is required to show good cause
(which is what the applicants must
show) fails to do so they may not proceed to submit application for
asylum. This intermediate
step is what is provided for in Regulations
8(3) . It is interesting to note that Section 21 of the Act says that
where a person
is not in possession of a valid visa the immigration
officer is required to interview such person to ascertain whether
there are
valid reasons why such a person is not in possession of
such a visa. It does not say what should occur where no such valid
reasons
are found to exist. Regulation 8(3) appears to be more
explicit in that regard.
e)
In the proceedings
before me the parties accepted that on the face of it Regulation 8(3)
created a jurisdictional requirement that
the applicants had to meet
before being allowed to apply for asylum. All of them entered South
Africa illegally and were not in
possession of valid visa issued in
terms of the Immigration Act and were therefore required to show good
cause as set out above.
Where
and when must good cause be established.
[28]
The applicants, placing reliance on Regulation 8(3) contended that
good cause had been established
as required by the Regulations and
argued that the Court must in terms of Regulation 8(4) require such a
person to show good cause
and the Court was therefore required to
make a determination in terms of Regulation 8(4) on the question of
good cause.
[29]
If regard is had to Regulation 8(4) it is certainly not clear what
situations it contemplated
and there are a number of difficulties
with the proposition that it applies in these civil proceedings
before me. They are :-
a)
The Regulation refers
to ‘any foreigner appearing before the Court’ This may
well be suggestive of a foreigner who appears
before the Court in
either criminal proceedings or in proceedings contemplated by the
Immigration Act and in particular the proceedings
following the
arrest of a foreigner and their appearance in Court following their
arrest and for the confirmation of their detention.
In this regard
Annexure B to the answering affidavit in the matter of Mr Jamal
reflects his appearance before a magistrate and
the questioning that
occurred prior to an order for his further detention. Certainly in
this context the foreigner is appearing
before the Court in a largely
inquisitorial process and if he should indicate an intention to apply
for asylum then the Court would
be obliged (must) to require him to
show good cause.
b)
In ordinary civil
proceedings such as these, the foreigner is not appearing before the
Court in the sense described in Regulation
8(4) and nor can it be
said that the Court in adversarial civil proceedings should be
compelled to require a litigant to prove
something. Generally, the
parties in civil proceedings define the issues and the court is
required to adjudicate the disputed issues
and not to raise issues
for determination nor compel a litigant to prove something (whether
or not it is an issue in dispute).
For this reason, I am also not
convinced that Regulation 8(4) was intended to apply in ordinary
civil litigation of this kind.
It is certainly better suited to
inquisitorial processes than to adversarial processes.
[30]
It is therefore for these reasons that I conclude that Regulation
8(4) does not apply in context
of these proceedings and to that
extent I am not empowered to either compel the applicants to show
good cause nor to make a determination
on good cause.
[31]
Having said that it must therefore follow that the applicants are
entitled to the opportunity
to show good cause and following that, if
they are successful to submit their applications for asylum. It is
not for this Court
to pre-empt whether the applications for good
cause or the asylum applications, if they are submitted, will be
successful or not.
What this Court has affirmed is the entitlement of
the applicants to access the provisions of the Act in the manner I
have described.
[32]
I intend making an order to facilitate the proper recognition of
their rights in this regard.
The
claim for the release of the applicants
[33]
On what is before me the applicants were detained in terms of the
Immigration Act and their further
detention has been authorised by a
Court. There was no suggestion that the existing warrants for their
detention were deficient
in any respect and leaving aside their
intimation to apply for asylum, there is nothing unlawful about their
detention.
[34]
What the applicants say is that once they make an election to apply
for asylum they are entitled
to their release in order to present
themselves to a Refugee Reception Office and that the refusal by the
respondents to release
them renders their current detention unlawful.
[35]
The ordinary procedure that would have followed had the applicants
reported at a port of entry
and intimated an intention to apply for
asylum would have been the issuing of an asylum transit visa that
would have allowed them
to enter the country and thereafter present
themselves to a Refugee Reception office. None of the applicants
followed this route
and the consequence of that is that they do not
have a valid immigration visa (transit asylum or otherwise). They
were accordingly
at risk of being arrested and this is what occurred.
[36]
They would, if their applications for asylum are submitted be
entitled to the issuing of a Section
22 permit to allow them to
remain in South Africa until the finalisation of their applications.
The provisions of Section 22 however
only come into operation once an
application for asylum has been submitted which has not occurred in
the case of the applicants.
[37]
In addition, the protection in Section 21(4) that no proceedings may
be instituted or continued
against someone who has entered the
country illegally if such a person has either applied for asylum or
has been granted asylum
is also not triggered as there is for now, no
application for asylum.
[38]
The detention of the applicants is therefore not unlawful and nor
have they demonstrated any
entitlement to their release, they may
well do so at a later stage but that is of no consequence now.
[39]
The new regulations signal a departure from the situation that
existed before it and in particular
the entitlement to apply for
asylum in cases of illegal entry is dependant now upon good cause
being shown. That being so it cannot
be said that an asylum seeker
who enters South Africa illegally and is in lawful immigration
detention can automatically trigger
his or her release if an
intimation is given that he or she wishes to apply for asylum. To do
so would ignore the scheme of the
new system, would undermine the
requirement of good cause and would not allow for harmony between the
Immigration Act and the
Refugees Act.
>
[40]
In this regard it is necessary to record that the 2000 regulations
were markedly different in
so far as they related to the right not to
be detained even in the case of those who entered South Africa
illegally. It provided
as follows :-
(2) Any person who
entered the Republic and is encountered in violation of the Aliens
Control Act,who has not submitted an application
pursuant to
sub-regulation 2(1), but indicates an intention to apply for asylum
shall be issued with an appropriate permit valid
for 14 days within
which they must approach a Refugee Reception Office to complete an
asylum application.
[41]
There is no similar provision in the current regulations and it must
therefore follow that the
detention of the applicants under the
Immigration Act continues to endure and is not interrupted by the
mere intimation of the
applicants of their intention to apply for
asylum but will be so interrupted once they apply for asylum and are
issued with permits
in terms of Section 22.
The
remedy
[42]
Mindful that Refugee Reception Offices remain closed and it is not
clear when they will be re-opened
but also recognising the right of
the applicants to be afforded the opportunity to show good cause and
if successful to then apply
for asylum, there is in my view a duty in
law on the respondents even in these unusual and difficult
circumstances to facilitate
such a process. There was, in response to
a suggestion made by the Court, seemingly nothing that stood in the
way of the respondents
taking the necessary steps to ensure that the
applicants can access the asylum seeking mechanisms of the Act.
Whether it requires
immigration officers to be taken to the
applicants for this purpose or in any other way that is practical and
feasible is for the
respondents to determine provided that ultimately
a process is undertaken in terms of which the applicants’
intention to
apply for asylum is responded to as required by the Act
or in a manner that gives substance to the Act.
[43]
In my view allowing the respondents a period of 14 days from the date
of this order to do so
would be reasonable.
Costs
[44]
Both parties have achieved some measure of success and an order that
each party pay its own costs
would be fair in the circumstances.
Order
[45]
I make the following order :-
a)
In case number
32620/2021
1)
The respondents
are interdicted from deporting the applicant pending the processes as
set out in paragraph 2 of this order
2)
The respondents are to
take all reasonable steps within 14 days from the date of the order
to give effect to the intention of the
applicant to apply for asylum
as contemplated in the
Refugees Act and
the Regulations thereto. This
may entail bringing the applicant before a Refugee Officer in a
manner that is both practical and
efficient regard being had to the
existing Covid regulations and the limitations associated therewith.
3)
Each party is to bear
its own costs.
b)
In case number
32621/2021
1)
The respondents are
interdicted from deporting the applicant pending the processes as set
out in paragraph 2 of this order
2)
The respondents are to
take all reasonable steps within 14 days from the date of the order
to give effect to the intention of the
applicant to apply for asylum
as contemplated in the
Refugees Act and
the Regulations thereto. This
may entail bringing the applicant before a Refugee Officer in a
manner that is both practical and
efficient regard being had to the
existing Covid regulations and the limitations associated therewith.
3)
Each party is to bear
its own costs.
c)
In case number
32622/2021
1)
The respondents are
interdicted from deporting the applicant pending the processes as set
out in paragraph 2 of this order
2)
The respondents are to
take all reasonable steps within 14 days from the date of the order
to give effect to the intention of the
applicant to apply for asylum
as contemplated in the
Refugees Act and
the Regulations thereto. This
may entail bringing the applicant before a Refugee Officer in a
manner that is both practical and
efficient regard being had to the
existing Covid regulations and the limitations associated therewith.
3)
Each party is to bear
its own costs.
________________
N
KOLLAPEN
Judge
of the High Court, Pretoria
APPEARANCES
Case
number: 32620/2021
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANT :Adv SI
VOBI
Instructed
by
:BUTHELEZI NF
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
:Adv TN MLAMBO
Instructed
by
:THE STATE ATTORNEY,
PRETORIA
Case
number: 32621/2021
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANT :Adv SI
VOBI
Instructed
by
: BUTHELEZI NF
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
:Adv M POMPO
Instructed
by
:THE STATE ATTORNEY,
PRETORIA
Case
number: 32622/2021
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANT :Adv T
LIPSHITZ
Instructed
by
: BUTHELEZI NF
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
:Adv BS MAPHOSA
Instructed
by
:THE STATE ATTORNEY,
PRETORIA
DATE
OF HEARING
:23 JULY 2021
DATE
OF JUDGMENT
:26 JULY 2021