1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2026-191497
In the appeal of:
MISGANU S. ASFAW Applicant
(PTAETH000140826)
and
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS First Respondent
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF Second Respondent
HOME AFFAIRS
JUDGMENT
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
……………………
SIGNATURE DATE
02/09/2026
l)t(,
' ✓ ' "' . • -
?: ~~ - ~
o,~"'
2
LABUSCHAGNE J:
[1] The applicant applied in the urgent court for the following relief:
1. That the application be heard on the basis of urgency.
2. That the Respondents issue the applicant with an asylum permit on the
date of service of the order;
3. That the respondents extend the applicant's asylum permit when it
expires, until his refugee status has been finally and lawfully determined;
4. That the respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application on
an attorney and own client scale.
[2] The applicant is an Ethiopian national who entered South Africa in 2025 and
who was arrested while working in a shop. He is incarcerated and faces
prosecution for breaching the immigration laws.
[3] He applied for an asylum permit which was turned down, and he thereafter
submitted a review to the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs (SCRA) in
terms of sec 24A of the Refugees Act, 130 of 1998.
[4] He was interviewed by a Refugee Determination Officer before his application
was turned down as manifestly unjustified . The grounds on which his
application for asylum w as refused included the finding that he did not fear
going back to Ethiopia but that he preferred living in South Africa due to better
economic opportunities. It is therefore apparent that he is not truly an asylum
seeker but an economic refugee. Nevertheless, he applies for asylum.
3
[5] Based on the aforesaid pending review before SCRA he may be entitled to
interim protection pending the decision by SCRA, but the outcome appears to
be bleak for the applicant. This judgment does not remove any interim
protections he is entitled to in law.
[6] The applicant faces a more fundamental difficulty affecting the urgency of the
matter. He has been arrested and detained for violation of immigration laws
which are unrelated to his application for asylum and his representations
before SCRA. Recently he brought an application on the same facts which on
19 August 2026 was struck from the roll by Kekana AJ for lack of urgency. The
applicant then proceeded to re-issue the same papers and set it down before
this court without disclosing the aforesaid. His case for urgency is self-created
in these circumstances.
[7] On the facts he disclosed during his interview at the Refugee Reception Office,
the applicant is not a bona fide asylum seeker who seeks protection in the
interim while exhausting internal remedies, reviews and appeals. The fact that
he is incarcerated has nothing to do with his application for asylum. I am not
satisfied that there are grounds to intervene on an urgent basis.
Order
[8] In the premises the application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency with
costs on Scale B.
4
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE OF HEARING: 27 AUGUST 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: SEPTEMBER 2026
APPEARANCE
FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV V SEKGOTLHE
FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV H LEGOABE