High Court Judicial Review in Immigration Matters
At Burgers Attorneys, we have proudly represented numerous clients in the High Court of South Africa through judicial review motion applications, particularly in complex immigration law matters.
At Burgers Attorneys, we have proudly represented numerous clients in the High Court of South Africa through judicial review motion applications, particularly in complex immigration law matters.
Through years of practice, we’ve learned that many international clients are under the false impression that they cannot approach South Africa’s High Courts for legal intervention in immigration disputes. This is not the case.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, specifically Section 33(3)(a), provides that any person whose rights have been negatively affected by unlawful, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair administrative action may approach the courts for relief. These rights are further protected under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) 3 of 2000, which gives legislative effect to Section 33 of the Constitution.
Our High Courts are empowered under Section 169 and Section 172 of the Constitution to adjudicate constitutional matters and provide remedies in cases of injustice — including immigration decisions. Furthermore, Section 10 of the Constitution guarantees the right to dignity, which lies at the heart of many immigration-related disputes.
Burgers Attorneys has represented vast amounts of clients in the High Court of South Africa with various judicial review motion applications, specifically pertaining to immigration law-related applications.
Through experience, we have also learned in practice, that international clientele are, on occasions, under the wrongful impression that they cannot approach our Honourable High Courts for assistance, intervention and relief regarding their immigration predicaments in various forms.
Such judicial review applications to our Honourable High Courts are brought in terms of Section 33(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 if anybody’s rights have been adversely affected by unlawful and unreasonable and procedurally unfair administrative action.
Such is also in conjunction with the Public Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), which was constitutionally mandated from stated Section 33 of our Constitution.
Our Constitution is supreme law of the Republic of South Africa and our constitutional court being our apex court and the highest court within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.
Such is also in conjunction with Section 169 of our esteemed Constitution addressing our High Courts and also in terms of Section 172 of our Constitution addressing the powers of our Honourable Courts in Constitutional matters.
There are various other sections relevant and / or applicable, as enshrined in our esteemed Constitution pertaining to such judicial review motion applications in our High Courts and merely one of such rights in our Constitution is Section 10 of our Constitution addressing the specific and extremely significant, important, and emotional right to dignity.
Such judicial review motion application to our honourable and esteemed High Courts is brought after the proper exhaustion of all internal remedies also in terms of stated PAJA, our Constitution and via various functionaries within the structures of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa, inclusive of the Director-General and the Minister of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa, where relevant and / or applicable.
It is unfortunately so that the offices and more specifically the Head Offices of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa, can on occasions, be indolent in the finalisation of their administrative processes or can, on occasions, formulate the incorrect decisions.
Burgers Attorneys understands that certain international clientele have struggled immensely internally via the structures of the offices of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa to get a specific immigration application resolved and finalised and where such pends indefinitely or to have such rejected, often legally incorrectly so.
Such international clientele having suffered severe prejudice, inconvenience, emotional trauma, wasted time and costs and furthermore belittlement of their dignity.
In such instance, after having obtained the correct professional legal advice and opinion, such international clientele are of the specific desire and instruction to rather place such application, by way of sworn testimony, where verbal, sworn testimony is normally not required before our Honourable High Courts for intervention, relief and adjudication and to seek a substituted court order from our Honourable High Courts after the proper exhaustion of all internal remedies.
Approaching our Honourable High Courts for relief should, however, always be a last and final resort.
In terms of PAJA, the refusal by an administrator to make a final decision, and in the instance of immigration law-related matters, the Minister and the Director-General of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa can also be construed as a final decision.
In such judicial review motional application to our Honourable High Courts, such international clientele will be cited and joined as the Applicant/s in such judicial review motion application and the Minister and the Director-General of the National Department of Home Affairs, South Africa will be joined and cited and the First and Second Respondents to such application.
Burgers Attorneys brings a wealth of knowledge and dedication to ensuring that our clients receive the highest quality legal representation