About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 560
|
|
Semambo and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2015/3768) [2015] ZAGPPHC 560 (29 July 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2015/3768
DATE: 29 JULY 2015
In the matter between:
ROSSY NOMSA SEMAMBO & 3
OTHERS
................................................................
APPLICANTS
And
THE MINISTER OF HOME
AFFAIRS
...............................................................
1ST
RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR - GENERAL OF
THE
............................................................
2ND
RESPONDENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant is a South African
woman married to a Ugandan man. They have children. The applicant
launched an urgent application
in January 2015. The application
included a Part A, seeking urgent relief and a Part B seeking
non-urgent relief. Part A sought
relief pending the outcome of Part
B. Mr Makapan, for the applicants informs me that what is before me
is only Part A. On 24 February
2015 the matter was struck from the
roll. On 31 March 2015 a different attorney begun to represent the
applicant. By that stage
the applicant’s replying affidavit had
already been filed.
2. In Part B the applicant seeks an
order that the first respondent’s decision to bring a
particular regulation into operation
is inconsistent with the
Constitution. The applicant does not suggest why this should be so. A
second prayer is that an alleged
decision to issue a directive to the
second applicant is reviewable. No grounds are set out for this
relief. A third prayer is
that a decision to declare the second
applicant to be undesirable is reviewable. The answering affidavit
makes it clear that no
such decision has been taken. It is also clear
that the application confuses a decision to declare a person
undesirable with one
prohibiting that person from entering the
country. The second applicant, it would appear, was refused entry to
the country on the
ground that he had a criminal conviction. The
answering affidavit also shows that internal remedies have not been
exhausted. There
is a fourth prayer which
I cannot decipher.
Order
1. Part A of the application is
dismissed.
2. The applicant, Rossy Nomsa Semambo,
is to pay the costs relating to today’s hearing.
3. The question of the balance of the
cost is reserved for the court hearing Part B.
GC WRIGHT J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
On behalf of the Applicant: Mr
Makapan
Instructed by: Makapan Attorneys
012 326 0245
On behalf of the Respondents: Adv
Bofilatos SC
Instructed by: State Attorneys
012 309 1653/1 Date of Hearing: 29
July 2015
Date of Judgment: 29 July 2015