Case Law[2023] ZAGPPHC 1946South Africa
Dlamini v DG Department of Home Affairs and Another (2115/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1946 (28 November 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
28 November 2023
Headnotes
-
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1946
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Dlamini v DG Department of Home Affairs and Another (2115/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1946 (28 November 2023)
Dlamini v DG Department of Home Affairs and Another (2115/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1946 (28 November 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1946.html
sino date 28 November 2023
I
N THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2115/2021
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
DATE: 28 November 2023
In the matter between:
Mpumelelo
Dlamini
Applicant
And
The DG Department of Home
Affairs
1 st
Respondent
The Minister of Home
Affairs
2nd
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
BOTHA AJ
1
Introduction
On
31 October 2023 I heard argument on behalf of both parties and an
ex
tempore
judgment was given whereby the
application was dismissed with costs. I will now give short and
concise reasons for my judgment.
2
The
Applicant brought an application against the Respondents wherein he
applied for the following relief:-
2.1 The Applicant qualifies to be
issued with a valid spousal permit that indicates that he is married
to TN Biyela;
2.2 That the spousal permit issued on
14 April 2014 is invalid; (This prayer is moot as the permit expired
in 2016)
2.3 The Identity document issued to
him in 2002 was erroneously issued.
3
The background can be summarised as
follows:-
3.1 The Applicant is a Swazi National.
He entered South Africa in 1994 on strength of a study permit.
3.2 Before the first democratic
elections in April 1994 he applied for a South African Identity
Document (ID) in order to vote in
the said elections. He was issued
with a temporary ID. In 2002 he was issued with a permanent ID which
he used in South Africa
from that time up to this day.
3.3 He married a South African
citizen, Me TM Biyela and three children were born from the union.
3.4 During the registration process of
their second child in November 2011 it came to light that the
Applicant’s ID was under
investigation.
3.5 He obtained legal advice that he
should surrender his South African ID and use his eSwatini documents
to apply for a spousal
permit and after four years apply for
permanent residence.
3.6 He applied for a spousal permit
which was issued albeit with errors. He did not surrender his South
African ID. The expiry date
of the spousal permit was 13 April 2016.
3.7 The Applicant continued to use the
South African ID during the course of his daily life- more specific
for financial transactions
with banks etc.
4
From the Respondent’s answering
affidavit another picture emerges.
4.1 The Applicant knew very well that
he obtained the South African ID by means of false information and
fraudulent misrepresentation
on his part:-
(a) He stated on the application that
he was born in South Africa;
(b) The town of his birth was stated
as Ngodini; and
(c) That he was resident at his
address in South Africa ( at the time in 1994) from 15 October 1980
well knowing that he only entered
South Africa in 1994 and that he
was a Swazi national.
4.2 The Applicant knew from at least
2011 that his ID was under investigation, yet he continue to used it
and therefor misrepresent
his status.
4.3 On 10 April 2001 at the Oshoek
borderpost, the Applicant was found to be an illegal foreigner and a
removal warrant was executed
and thus the Applicant was deported. It
is unclear when and how the Applicant managed to re-enter the
Republic of South Africa.
5
It needs mentioning that the Applicant
filed a replying affidavit in response to the allegations in the
answering affidavit . This
was done one year later without applying
for condonation and therefor I had no regard to it.
6
Regulatory framework
6.2 This application is governed by
the Aliens Control Act 96 of 1991 which has been repealed by the
Immigration Act 13 of 2002
.
Sec 48
of the
Immigration Act states
in
broad strokes that no illegal foreigner shall be exempt from a
provision of the Act and allowed to sojourn in South Africa on
grounds that the person was not informed that he or she could not
enter or sojourn or that the person was allowed to remain in
the
Republic through error or misrepresentation, or because his or her
being an illegal foreigner was undiscovered.
6.2 In terms of
Regulation 3(7)
of the
Immigration Act, Regulation
2014, the Director General
shall
withdraw any visa or permanent residence permit and where applicable,
lay criminal charges where it appears to the Director General
that a
visa or permanent residence permit was obtained through error,
misrepresentation or fraud.
6.3 Regulation 26(4) prescribes the
procedure to be followed by a person in the shoes of the Applicant in
order to be rehabilitated
by the Director General to be granted a
status to reside in South Africa.
6.4
Sec 49
(14) of the
Immigration Act
makes
it a criminal offence if any person, for the purpose of
entering, or remaining in, or departing from………
commits
any fraudulent act or makes any false representation to that
end.
6.5 In terms of
Sec 29(1)(f)
, any
person found in possession of a fraudulent permit, visa, passport or
ID , is a prohibited person, not eligible for entry
into, residence
in and not allowed to apply for a visa. If already in possession of a
valid visa, but becomes a prohibited person,
that visa is withdrawn.
7
In summary:-
7.1 The Applicant is a Swazi national;
7.2 He entered South Africa in 1994 on
strength of a study permit;
7.3 He applied in 1994 for a South
African ID, well knowing he is not a South African citizen and by
supplying false information
to back up his application;
7.4 He married a South African citizen
and three children were born out of the marriage;
7.5 He was deported back to eSwatini
in 2001;
7.6 It is nor clear how he re entered
the Republic;
7.7 In February 2002 he accepted
another South African ID well knowing it contained false information
and more specific that he
was born in the RSA;
7.8 In 2016 the spousal permit
expired;
7.9 This application was launched to
somehow circumvent the provisions of the
Immigration Act.
8
Therefor
the application was dismissed
with costs
GB BOTHA
Acting Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date
of Hearing: 31 October 2023
Judgment
delivered: 31 October 2023
Reasons
delivered: 28 November 2023
Attorneys
for applicant: JF Shababgu Attorney
Counsel
for applicant: Adv TS Ngwenya
Attorneys
for respondent: State Attorney
Counsel
for respondent: Adv R Peterson
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Dlamini v S - Appeal (A55/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1877 (25 October 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1877High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Dlamini and Another v S (A189/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 575 (27 June 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 575High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Dlamini and Others v S (A82/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 917 (8 September 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 917High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Dlamini v S [2023] ZAGPPHC 468; A215/22 (13 June 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 468High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Dlamini Incorporated and Another v Legal Practice Council of South Africa and Another (2025-064733) [2025] ZAGPPHC 621 (23 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 621High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar