 |
| J K TETTEY v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS |
This case involves an illegal alien married to a South African citizen. Applicant was promised to be allowed to apply for permanent residence should he give evidence against the officials charged with misconduct for contravening departmental procedures. However the Department failed to honor its promise. The Department was ordered by the court to allow him to apply.
|
|
| YUANDAU XU v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS |
This case involves two applications, the one was Yuandau Xu and the other was K H Tang. The principle in both cases was disclosure of reasons for a refusal. The one is a refusal of an extension of a permit. At the time of the applications, both applicants were illegal in the Republic. The judgment was in favour of the Department with costs because according to the court, applicants had no rights that were affected by the decision of the Department, and were therefore not entitled to reasons.
|
|
| TSANG v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS |
The court dismissed two applications by illegal aliens demanding written reasons for refusal to grant temporary residence permit and extend another in terms of the Aliens Control Act 96 of 1991.
|
|
| NATIONAL COALITION FOR GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALITY v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS |
The applicants were challenging the constitutionality of section 25(5) of the Aliens Control Act 96 of 1991 in so far as the definition of ‘spouse’ therein excluded “same sex life partners”. The court found the provisions of section 25(5) unconstitutional as it violates the right to equality as well as discriminating on the basis of gender and marital status.
|
|
| DEMOCRATIC PARTY v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS |
This case involves the challenge of the constitutionality of the requirement of a green bar-coded identity document in order to register and vote in the national and provincial elections. The constitutional court decided in favour of the government, holding that the requirement of a green bar-coded identity document was lawful and constitutional.
|
