REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Numbers: 2026-191123; 2026-193157; 2026-185840; 2026-185934;2026-
191120; 2026-191741; 2026-185842; 2026-185772; 2026-191102; 2026-190675;
2026-185670; 2026-185696; 2026-185723; 2026-191088; 2026-194068; 2026-
191845; 2026-185857; 2026-191126; 2026-194239; 2026-192439
(1) REPORTABLE: YES
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
(3)
In the matter between:
ABIJO MNAMO
ABRAHAM ABUTHE
ASAMO WORKINHE ARMIYAS
ASHENAE DU Bl ELA AG ENO
CHAKISO BEKELE
HARRIS BLONDEL YELENGOUE NYATCHOU
KALITAMO ABEBE ACHEBO
IBRAHIM DARASA
LAWRENCE LOBA
1
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant
Fifth Applicant
Sixth Applicant
Eighth Applicant
Seventh Applicant
Nineth Applicant
MARSHALLLEBEDE
MATHEWOS ESIYS
NESTOR NIYOKINDA
OBED LUTUMBA KABEYA
PLATINUM MORGAN
RARI SANTO
RICHARD IFEANYI NKEMKA
SADIK RAJABU
SALTON MOHAMMED
SOLOMON ONISE MELESE
WALDO MALAKU
WONDEMU SADEKO
And
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE CHIEF DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE CHAIRPERSON: REFUGE STATUS
DETERMINATION OFFICER
THE CHIEF-DIRECTOR OF DEPORTATIONS;
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE MANAGEMENT LINDELA HOLDING FACILITY
THE MINISTER OF POLICE
JUDGMENT
MOTHA, J
2
Tenth Applicant
Eleventh Applicant
Twelfth Applicant
Thirteenth Applicant
Fourteenth Applicant
Fifteenth Applicant
Sixteenth Applicant
Seventeenth Applicant
Eighteenth Applicant
Nineteenth Applicant
Twentieth Applicant
Twenty-first Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Seventh Respondent
1. The March and March's loud outcry ABAHAMBE, directed at undocumented
foreign nationals, has reverberated across the continent of Africa. Its aftershocks
were felt acutely in the Urgent Court, where my roll included nearly 60 urgent
applications from undocumented foreign nationals detained for deportation at
Lindela Repatriation Centre. Reacting to the lamentations of thousands of South
Africans about the exponential increase in undocumented foreign nationals, and
perhaps fearing a decline in electoral support, the legislature amended the
Refugee Act, thereby heralding a new regime. Unconcerned with electoral
fortunes, the Constitutional Court in Sca/abrini Centre of Cape Town and Another
v Minister of Home Affairs and Others1 confirmed the Western Cape court's
decision that the amendments were inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid,
thereby creating a babelic lacuna.
2. In casu, the applicants are mostly Ethiopian nationals, with a few Congolese and
Nigerian nationals. They are all undocumented, and some have been in South
Africa since 2020. For one reason or another, none of them have been interviewed
by the Refugee Reception Office (RRO), despite seeking asylum. Naturally, they
all undertake to make themselves available to the RRO upon release.
3. The Refugees Act 130 of 1998 provides a detailed framework regulating
applications for refugee status. The grounds upon which a person may qualify for
refugee status are set out in section 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for
the exclusion from refugee status and section 5 of the Act for the cessation of
status. When dealing with asylum seekers in South Africa, the starting point, I dare
say, is section 2 of the Refugees Act, which reads:
"Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any other law to the contrary, no
person may be refused entry into the Republic, expelled, extradited or returned to
1 (CCT126/25) (2026] ZACC 30 (7 July 2026)
3
any other country or be subject to any similar measure, if as a result of such refusal,
expulsion, extradition, return or other measure, such person is compelled to return
to or remain in a country where-
( a) he or she may be subjected to persecution on account of his or her
race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular
social group; or
(b) his or her life, physical safety or freedom would be threatened on
account of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or other
events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either part or
the whole of that country."
4. Referring to this provision as remarkable , the court in Ruta v Minister of Home
Affairs2 held:
"This is a remarkable provision. Perhaps it is unprecedented in the history of our
country's enactments. It places the prohibition it enacts above any contrary
provision of the Refugees Act itself - but also places its provisions above anything
in any other statute or legal provision. That is a powerful decree. Practically it
does two things. It enacts a prohibition. But it also expresses a principle: that of
non-refoulement, the concept that one fleeing persecution or threats to "his or her
life, physical safety or freedom" should not be made to return to the country
inflicting it."3
5. Furthermore , the court in Ruta articulated the principle of non-refoulement as
follows:
"It is a noble principle - one our country, for deep-going reasons springing from
persecution of its own people, has emphatically embraced. The provenance of
section 2 of the Refugees Act lies in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2 (CCT02/18)[2018] ZACC52; 2019 (3)BCLR383(CC) SA 329 (CC) (20 December 2018)
3 Supra para 24.
4
(Universal Declaration), which guarantees "the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution". The year in which the Universal Declaration
was adopted is of anguished significance to our country, for in 1948 the apartheid
government came to power. Its mission was to formalise and systematise, with
often vindictive cruelty, existing racial subordination, humiliation and exclusion.
From then, as apartheid became more vicious and obdurate, our country began to
produce a rich flood of its own refugees from persecution, impelled to take shelter
in all parts of the world, but especially in other parts of Africa. That history looms
tellingly over any understanding we seek to reach of the Refugees Act.
The principle of protecting refugees from persecution was elaborated three years
after the Universal Declaration, in article 33 of the Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees of 1951 (1951 Convention). This gave substance to article 14
of the Universal Declaration. The 1951 Convention defined "refugees", while
codifying non refoulement. South Africa as a constitutional democracy became a
State Party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol when it acceded to both
of them on 12 January 1996 - which it did without reservation. In doing so, South
Africa embraced the principle of non-refoulement as it has developed since 1951.
The principle has been a cornerstone of the international law regime on refugees.
It has also become a deeply-lodged part of customary international law and is
cons idered part of international human rights law. As refugees put agonising
pressure on national authorities and on national ideologies in Europe, North
America, and elsewhere, the response to these principles of African countries,
including our own, is of profound importance."4
6. Following the amendments that took effect in January 2020, a new regime came
into existence; Regulation 2(2) was abrogated. The new regime was underpinned
into existence; Regulation 2(2) was abrogated. The new regime was underpinned
by ss4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i), 21(1B), Regulations 7 and 8. For the sake of
completeness , it is imperative to refer to these sections and regulations, which
read:
"Exclusion from refugee status
4 Supra paras 25 and 26.
5
4. (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:
(f) has committed an offence in relation to the fraudulent possession,
acquisition or presentation of a South African identity card, passport, travel
document, temporary residence visa or permanent residence permit; or
(h) having entered the Republic, other than through a port of entry
designated as such by the Minister in terms of section 9Aof 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."
7. Section 21(18) reads:
"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."
8. Regulation 7 reads:
"7. Asylum transit visa
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, including-(a) fingerprints;(b) photograph;(c)
names and surname;(d) date of birth and age;(e) nationality or origin;
6
and(f)habitual place of residence prior to travelling to the Republic. And must be
issued with an asylum transit visa contemplated in section 23 of the Immigration
Act."
9. In relevant parts, Regulation 8 provides:
"Application for asylum
(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;(b)be
made in a form substantially corresponding with Form 2 (DHA-1590) contained in
the Annexure;(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;(ii)proof of any
form of a valid identification document: Provided that if the applicant does not have
proof of a valid identification document, a declaration of identity must be made in
writing before an immigration officer; and(iii)the biometrics of the applicant,
including any dependant. .. "
10. Of paramount importance is that Regulation 2(2) of the old regime was not
retained. The regulation read:
"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."
11 . In a nutshell, the new regime grappled with three vexed questions:
7
1. What happens when a foreign national does not enter South Africa through
the designated ports of entry, in short, enters illegally?
2. What happens when a foreign national does not present himself before the
RRO or within five days as contemplated in the asylum transit visa?
3. What happens when an undocumented foreign national has lived in South
Africa for years and, upon arrest, expresses an intention to apply for
asylum?
12. Under the new regime, Regulation 7 requires an individual to declare their intention
to apply for asylum at the port of entry before entering South Africa. If eligible,
they/she/he will be issued an Asylum Transit Visa in terms of s 23 of the
Immigration Act.
13. Since South Africa's borders are porous, thousands enter the country and stay
undocumented for years. When such an individual presents
himself/herself/themselves to the RRO, Regulation 8(3) requires "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" (Emphasis added).
14. This marked a radical departure from the status quo ante under the old Regulation
2(2). Section 21 (1 B) works in tandem with Regulation 8(3), which provides that "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." (Emphasis added).
8
15. What happens if the person is brought to court and expresses an intention to apply
for asylum? In that instance, it is noteworthy that Regulation 8(4) provides: "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
subregulation." (Emphasis added)
Post-Scalabrini regime.
16. The latest ruling on these predicaments is Scalabrini. Before Scalabrini, Ashebo v
Minister of Home Affairs and Others5 was the last word on these predicaments.
Although it addressed the issue of sur place, the court in Director-General,
Department of Home Affairs and Others v lrankunda and Anothe~ was about the
following question:
"However, before doing so I pause to remark on what this case is about. It is only
about whether the Act, properly interpreted, creates the right for a failed asylum
seeker to make subsequent applications."7
17. Therefore, Scalabrini remains the last, though I suspect not the final, word on these
predicaments. Interestingly, some of the Justices who concurred in Ashebo,
decided in 2023, dealt with Scalabrini in 2026. Ex facie, it therefore seems
counterintuitive that in 2024 the court in Ashebo would hold:
"It is clear, therefore, that the combined effect of the amended provisions in
sections 4(1 )(h) and (i) and 21 (1 B) of the Refugees Amendment Act and
regulations 7 and 8(3) is to provide an illegal foreigner, who intends to apply for
asylum but who did not arrive at a port of entry and express his or her intention
there, with a means to evince the intention even after the five-day period
5 (CCT 250/22) (2023] ZACC 16; 2023 (5) SA 382 (CC); 2024 (2) BCLR 217 (CC) (12 June 2023) .
6 (CCT 214/24) (2026] ZACC 18; 2026 (7) BCLR 682 (CC); 2026 (4) SA 603 (CC) (12 May 2026).
7 Supra para 61.
9
contemplated in section 23 of the Immigration Act. The illegal foreigner does so
during an interview with an immigration officer at which they must show good cause
for their illegal entry or stay in the country and furnish good reasons why they do
not possess an asylum transit visa, before they are allowed to apply for asylum."8
18. More importantly, the court would conclude:
"In my view, these provisions do not offend the principle of non-refoulement
embodied in section 2 of the Refugees Act. Their effect is by no means out of kilter
with article 31 of the Convention, the fount of section 2. Rather, they accord with
its import because it too does not provide an asylum seeker with unrestricted
indemnity from penalties. The article provides that a Contracting State may not
impose penalties on refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence in the
country provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and
show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."9
19. And two years and a few months later, the Constitutional Court, in Scalabrini , would
assert that the court in Ashebo "was not condoning non-compliance with the non
refoulement principle at all ... "10
20. Explicating its comment, the court, in Scalabrini , maintained that:
"Equally misconceived is the respondents' reliance on this obiter dictum (comment
in passing) in Ashebo:
8 Ashebo para 43
9 Ashebo para 44
"In my view, these provisions do not offend the principle of non-refoulement
embodied in section 2 of the Refugees Act. Their effect is by no means out of kilter
with Article 31 of the [1951 Refugee] Convention, the fount of section 2."11
10 Scalabrini para 84.
11Supra para 83.
10
21. To me, with respect, the two cannot coexist. Be that as it may, the court, in
Scalabrini, continued and expressed itself as follows:
"When section 21(18) is read together with regulation 8(3), the practical effect of
that section is plainly to prevent an asylum seeker from proceeding to a merits
based determination."12
22. It is noteworthy that the court did not elucidate what a merits-based determination
means, especially for the benefit of the lower courts which are on the front lines. It
has proven to be an exorbitant exercise to second-guess what the Apex Court
means by this or that legal terminology.
23. In Scalabrini, the court critiqued the new regime and zeroed in on a few pitfalls,
including the following:
"Regulation 8(3) thus fleshes out and gives effect to the purpose of section 21(18)
and is the only mechanism that makes section 21 (18) a workable provision.
On that approach, it is evident that section 21 (18), read with regulation 8(3),
establishes two distinct thresholds . Section 21(18) requires an applicant to show
valid reasons to the immigration officer for not being in possession of an asylum
transit visa. Regulation 8(3) requires good cause to be shown (and, in passing, it
must be added, it is not clear to whom this has to be shown) for illegal entry or
stay."13
24. Furthermore, the court criticised the new regime as conferring unguided discretion
and being impermissibly vague because the regulation is silent on or fails to
pinpoint the functionary or decision-maker who is charged with the responsibility
of conducting the interview.
12 Supra para 85.
13 Supra paras 85 and 86.
11
25. Indignant at the requirement that asylum seekers may face "the same questions
two or three times, and show "good cause" or "valid reasons" to one ( or perhaps
two) officials, but "compelling reasons" to another." The court, in Scalabrini,
branded the new regime absurd and held:
"It is self-evidently, inherently problematic that different thresholds are applied to
what is, in substance, the same inquiry. The use of multiple and escalating
standards creates uncertainty as to which test applies, when it applies and by
whom it must be applied, thereby rendering the scheme internally inconsistent and
unpredictable in its operation."14
26.Additionally, the court bemoaned the failure to define words such as "good cause",
"valid reasons" or "compelling reasons." Importantly, the court decried the absence
of a principled framework for decision-making which would assist in distinguishing
between acceptable and unacceptable explanations.
27. Essentially, the court pointed out that the "compelling reasons" test in section
4(1 )(h), the "valid reasons" test in section 21 (1 B) and the "good cause" test in
regulation 8(3) have no guidance whatsoever." Consequently, this conferred
unjustifiably broad discretion, resulting in a real risk of arbitrary and inconsistent
decision-making.
28. The final nail in the coffin for the new regime was the conclusion that s21 (1 B), read
with regulation 8(3), is irrational. Given that regulation 8 had been struck down by
the Western Cape Court, the court held that, absent the regulations, s21 (1 B), on
its own, was meaningless and therefore irrational, as it served no discernible
purpose.
29. From the tenor of the judgment, it would not be far-fetched to surmise that the court
sought to resurrect the Regulation 2(2) era. What cements this view is the court's
14 Supra para 88.
12
remarks that "there is no justifiable basis why asylum seekers should be disbarred
from applying based on procedural missteps ... In addition, the amended scheme
introduces arbitrary distinctions that did not exist prior to the amendments." 15
30. Stripped of legalese, the court, in my view, is stating that illegal entry into the
Republic and failure to report to RRO, including remaining undocumented in the
Republic for years at times, constitute procedural missteps.
31. In the real world, the court asserted under 21 ( 1 B) that when the Refugee Status
Determination Office (RSDO) found no compelling reasons for the delay in
reporting, the applicant is altogether prevented from entering the asylum process;
instead of being given written reasons and a right of appeal to the Refugee Appeal
Authority (RAA).
32. The court concluded that "apart from opacity, absurdity, unconstrained and
unguided discretion and irrationality, section 21 (1 B) also infringes the non
refoulement principle."16
33. Without carving out a new interim regime, the court might as well have resurrected
Regulation 2(2). The reality is that the lower courts are caught in a Catch-22,
damned if they rule to release and damned if they rule otherwise. To me, it is the
height of folly to arrest undocumented foreign nationals for being undocumented
and then release them back into society still undocumented, to face re-arrest. The
expression of an intention to apply for asylum is no reason to release an
undocumented foreign national back into society under the hope that within ten
(10) or fifteen (15) days of their release, they will present themselves to the RRO
to apply for asylum. This catch-and-release regime is undignified, perpetuates
corruption and exposes foreign nationals to financial exploitation.
15 Supra para 94.
16 Supra para 97.
13
34. In my view, the perspicuous comments of Maya DCJ, as she then was, in Ashebo
are not only sound but must also be heeded and followed:
"To sum up, the applicant is entitled to an opportunity to be interviewed by an
immigration officer to ascertain whether there are valid reasons why he is not in
possession of an asylum transit visa. And he must, prior to being permitted to
apply for asylum, show good cause for his illegal entry and stay in the country, as
contemplated in the above provisions. Once he passes that hurdle and an
application for asylum is lodged, the entitlements and protections provided in
sections 22 and 21 (4) of the Refugees Act - being issued with an asylum seeker
permit that will allow him to remain in the country, without delay, and being shielded
from proceedings in respect of his unlawful entry into and presence in the country
until his application is finally determined - will be available to him.
Once the applicant has an asylum seeker visa issued in terms of section 22, he
would be entitled to remain in this country temporarily. His continued detention, to
the extent that it rests solely on section 34 of the Immigration Act, would
unquestionably become unlawful, because he would no longer be an "illegal
foreigner" for purposes of the Immigration Act. Merely expressing an intention to
seek asylum does not entitle the applicant to release from detention. On the other
hand, however, the respondents, particularly the first, second, fourth, and fifth are
obliged - regardless of the basis of his detention - to assist him to give effect to
his intention to apply for asylum. At a practical level, this simply means that these
respondents must facilitate arrangements either to transport the applicant to a
RRO for his interview or to bring the relevant immigration and refugee officials to
the correctional centre in which he is detained to conduct the necessary processes,
whichever means is convenient. They must further refrain from deporting him until
whichever means is convenient. They must further refrain from deporting him until
his asylum application is finalised."17
35. Despite the seriousness of the issues and the number of applicants, the
Department of Home Affairs was a no-show in court until the court insisted on their
17 Ashebo paras 59 and 60
14
presence. After their appearance in court, the matters were properly ventilated .
However, the immigration issue is too serious to be treated in this manner.
36. It bears mentioning that all the applicants' representatives and the respondents'
representatives submitted that it would be prudent to address these issues in a
manner that is in line with the statements of Maya DCJ.
37. Having listened to all submissions from the legal representatives of the parties who
opted to proceed with the applications, it became evident and most concerning
that, when these matters are heard, the views of organizations such as Dudula
and March and March are not before the court, despite representing a sizeable
sector of South African society. It appears that the voice of the most resourced
carries the day. The views and opinions of certain well-resourced NGOs and NPOs
are always taken on board, perhaps rightly so. Ultimately, it is imperative that
courts avoid an echo chamber at all costs. To ignore the views of the impoverished
and downtrodden members of the society does not auger well for the future, to say
the least.
38. Finally, I must express my gratitude to the Director in charge of the Tshwane
Refugee Reception Office, Mr. Mfundo Ngozwana. His assertions were sound,
particularly the undertaking to broach the subject of establishing a Refugee
Reception Office at or near the Lindela Repatriation Centre.
39. It is trite that costs follow the results. In casu, I do not find any reason to depart
from that well-trodden path. In the result, I make the following order:
Order
1. The Applicants' non-compliance with Uniform Rules of Court relating to form,
service and time periods is condoned and the matter is heard as one of urgency in
terms of Rule 6(12).
15
2. Pending the outcome of the Applicants' asylum applications, the Respondents are
interdicted and restrained from deporting the Applicants.
3. The Respondents are directed to transport the relevant immigration and refugee
officials to Lindela Repatriation Center to conduct the necessary processes; if
unable to do so, transport the applicants to the nearest Refugee Reception Office
for processing.
4. The Respondents are to pay jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved, the costs of all the applicants on a party and party scale A.
MPMO HA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
16
Appearances
Date of Hearing
Date of Judgment
For Applicants in matters 5;22;32;33& 42
Instructed by
For Applicants in matters 2; 17;30;39; &40
Instructed by
For Applicants in matters 3 & 27
Instructed by
For Applicants in matter 50
Instructed by
For Applicants in matters 10;12;28;29;34;35;38&43
Instructed by
For Respondent
Instructed by
17
18 and 21 August 2026
25 August 2026
Adv N. F. Chauke
Sawall Attorneys
Adv N. Pama-Sihunu
Chokoe Attorneys
Adv Tandoh Desmond
Attorneys
Adv I. Nwakodo
Tony Okorie Attorneys
Adv G. Mothemane
Mashimbye Attorneys
Adv K. Mabuza
The State Attorney
URGENT COURT ROLL (17th TO THE 21st August 2026)
PRESIDING JUDGE JUDGE'S CLERK EMAIL & OFFICE TEL:
MOTHAJ FIKILE LEREMI FLeremi@judiciarv.org.za
010 494 8334
No CasNo Part ies' Names
1 26-189244 4 EVERGREEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS (PTY) LTD v. MOGALE CITY
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY# 2026-189244
2 26-191123 ABIJO MNAMO v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-191123
3 26-193157 ABRAHAM ABUTHE v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND 5 OTHERS
4 26-190470 AKILILU ASHETU v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-190470
5 26-190451 ALEX BIHi v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-190451
6 26-190774 ALI SHUCEB v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-190774 #
7 26-182827 AMAN MIAN MOHAMMED v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFIRS
8 26-189122 AM ERON ENERGIES AG v. SIGEO HOLDINGS PROPRIETARY LIMITED
9 26-192470 AMNEL AMNEL v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-192470
10 26-185840 ASAMO WORKINHE ARMIYAS v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
11 26-191523 ASHANAF DOMBALO DANTISO v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
12 26-185934 ASHENAE DUBIELA AGENO v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185934
13 26-192873 Bamade . Jamal v. The Mi nister of Home affairs# 2026-192873
14 26-192877 Bejoko. Melaku v. The Minister of Hom e affairs# 2026-192877
15 26-185469 CAHIRNET MUSI v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
16 26-193903 CEDERIC NKURUZIZA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-193903
17 26-191120 CHAKISO BEKELE v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026- 191120 #
18 26-193940 CHIEMEKA EKECHUKWU OBASI v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -193940
19 26-182600 CORNELL MAJARA MONYAKE v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
20 26-185516 DANIEL HAUZE MARMAM v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFIRS
21 26-182611 DAVID CRUZ VIERA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -182611 #
22 26-190681 DAWIT KASSA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-190681 #
23 26-192456 DAWIT GEBRE ARFICHO v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-192456
24 26-186337 Faith Tumelo Komape v. E-Joburg Retirement Fund -Administered by
Momentum # 2026 -186337 #
25 26-194016 FLORENCE EKECHUKWU DARKO v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-194016
26 26-190656 GUMI ZELEKE GASHE v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -190656
27 26-191741 HARRIS BLONDEL YELENGOUE NYATCHOU v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
AND 7 OTHERS# 2026-191741
28 26-185842 IBRAHIM DARASAv. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185842
29 26-185772 KALITAMO ABEBE ACHEBO v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185772
30 26-191102 LAWRENCE LOBA v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-191102
31 26-192373 LINDA LOUISA GXASHEKA v. CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY# 2026 -192373
32 26-190675 MARSHALL LEBEDE v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -190675
33 26-191632 MATHEWOS ESIYS v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-191632
34 26-185670 NESTOR NIYOKINDA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185670 #
35 26-185696 OBED LUTUMBA KABEYA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185696 #
36 26-19407 PATRICK NTUZENIMANA v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-194076
37 26-189311 peter paulos moloko monyepao v. city of ekurhuleni metropolitan municipality
38 26-185723 PLATINUM MORGAN v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-18S723
39 26-191088 RARI SANTO v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-191088
40 26-194068 RICHARD IFEANYI NKEMKA v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-194068
41 26-182840 ROHMAN RIZWAN v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
42 26-191845 SADIK RAJABU v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -191845 #
43 26-185857 SALTON MOHAMMED v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-185857
44 26-182586 SAMUEL NAWAB v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
45 26-192492 SELFU TIRE v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-192492 #
46 26-190781 SISAYE TAMIRAT v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -190781
47 26-191126 SOLOMON ONISE MELESE v. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026- 191126 #
48 26-185532 TESHUME KEM ISO v. THE M INISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
49 25-238970 THE SOUTHERN AFRICA FUJIAN OVERSEAS CHINESE ASSOCIATION v. THE
SOUTHERN AFRICA FUJIAN OVERSEAS CHINESE ASSOCIATION# 2025-238970
50 26-194239 WALDO MALAKU v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026 -194239 #
51 26-192439 WONDEMU SADEKO v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-192439
52 26-193440 Vonwaba Gcaba v. National Students Financial Aid Scheme# 2026 -193440
53 26-194228 ZAMA ABDUL v. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS# 2026-194228