Click here to read the judgment on Saflii

[1]          The applicant, a Ugandan national, brought this application to review and set aside the decision of the first respondent, the Minister of Home Affairs (“the Minister”). The impugned decision was made on an appeal to the Minister in terms of section 8(6) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 (“the Act”), to the effect that the applicant is a prohibited person in terms of section 29(1)(f) of the Act. In the alternative, the applicant seek a declaration that she is not a prohibited in terms of section 29(1)(f).[1]

[2]          Section 29(1) of the Act lists certain categories of foreigners who “are prohibited persons [who] do not qualify for a port of entry visa, admission into the Republic, a visa or a permanent residence permit”. The list, in subsection (f) thereof, include “anyone found in possession of a fraudulent visa, passport, permanent residence permit or identification document.”

[3]          In terms of section 29(2) of the Act, “[t]he Director-General may, for good cause, declare a person referred to in subsection (1) not to be a prohibited person.”

[4]          Section 8(6) and (7) of the Act provides for a decision of the DG to be taken on review or appeal to the Minister, who shall consider the application, whereafter the Minister shall either confirm, reverse or modify that decision.

[5]          The Department of Home Affairs (“the Department”) determined that a work visa (“the impugned visa”) obtained by the applicant was fraudulent. Thereafter the applicant applied to the Director General of the Department (“the DG”) to have her prohibition uplifted in terms of section 29(2) of the Act. The DG however, turned down her application. She thereafter unsuccessfully appealed the DG’s decision to the Minister in terms of section 8(6) of the Act. It is the latter decision which is under scrutiny in the present matter.