A car accident victim is challenging a directive by the Gauteng high court which makes mediation mandatory before civil trials are heard. She demands her day in court and says she cannot afford mediation.

WHILE the Constitutional Court has declined leave to a law firm to directly approach the apex court in an urgent bid to overturn a directive introducing mandatory mediation in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, a vehicle accident victim who is also objecting to the directives will take her plight to court.
The Durban-based woman, who is left a paraplegic following the accident, will turn to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria later in June to ultimately have the directives issued by the head of the court overturned.

She said her accident occurred six years ago and she eventually obtained a court date issued in 2023 for her hearing. Her matter is scheduled to be heard in August this year, but her case is now first subject to arbitration in terms of the directive.
This follows a directive issued by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo earlier this year that the Johannesburg and Pretoria high courts no longer allocate trial dates for civil cases (cases where evidence is being led, such as damages claims).

Litigants, who in these cases want a judge to determine their issues, must first prove that they have tried to resolve their issues via mediation. A trial date will be allocated only if mediation does not resolve the issues, and they can prove via a certificate that they did try it.
The Office of the Chief Justice earlier explained that there are no alternatives as the Gauteng Divisions simply cannot cope with the heavy workload. Judge Mlambo also commented in his directive that the bulk of these cases are, in any event, settled on the day of the trial. Thus, the mediation route is the practical solution so that judges can be freed to adjudicate over other matters.

The woman will meanwhile bring her application in two parts - the first is that she and others may retain the court dates they have secured before the new directive came into force in April. The second part in which she is contesting the legality of the directive, will be heard at a later stage.
The accident victim in this new legal challenge explained that it is expected of her (and others) to first pay the mediation fees before a mediator can adjudicate her case. She explained that before the accident she was a hairdresser. As she is now wheelchair-bound, her only income is a social grant. She is also HIV-positive and struggles with health issues.

She said in an affidavit that this application is to ensure that she has her day in court. The applicant stated that the directive differentiates between plaintiff litigants and the RAF regarding the amount payable for mediation and when it's payable.
The RAF, she claims, is only liable for R15,000 per mediation, which only becomes payable 30 days after the receipt of the mediation report. A plaintiff, on the other hand, must pay the balance of the mediation fee upfront.

“If a plaintiff litigant does not pay, no mediation can be conducted and no trial date can be obtained,” she stated. According to the plaintiff, she cannot pay for mediation and this will result in her being denied justice. She also questioned the constitutional validity of the directive.

Gert Nel Inc Attorneys, through its director Gert Nel, in his now failed bid to the ConCourt, questioned whether this move for mandatory mediation is constitutionally sound. In an affidavit accompanying his urgent application, Nel said there are constitutional limits on judicial power.

At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the minister or Parliament can change the status of the permit
ZEP holders have won another court victory against the Minister of Home Affairs, but their legal battle to stay in South Africa is far from over.

The Minister of Home Affairs has failed in his bid to overturn an interim interdict, granted in favour of the Zimbabwe Immigration Federation. The interdict prevented the arrest and deportation of Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) holders.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on Friday that the interdict must remain in place, pending further court proceedings by the Federation. The Federation is seeking a ruling that the minister has no authority at all to terminate the ZEP regime. The permit was introduced in 2009 because of the “floods” of Zimbabweans entering the country at that time.

The Federation intends to argue that only Parliament can terminate the constitutional rights of the 180,000 holders of the permits. And that the Minister was wrong in law in believing that the termination of the regime would result in their deportation which was contrary to the principle of “non refoulement”.

Complicated history
The matter has a legally complicated history. In June 2023, three judges sitting in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ruled on two matters relating to the attempted termination of the ZEP regime by the minister.

One was an application by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), in which the court granted final relief, declaring the minister’s decision to be unlawful. The court reviewed and set it aside and directed the minister to reconsider his decision following a “fair process”.

The court also granted protection to ZEP holders in the meantime.
The federation’s case was slightly different. It brought, and secured, an application (Part A) for interim relief, preventing the arrest and deportation of ZEP holders pending a review (Part B) of the minister’s decision.

The matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal in an application by the minister to have the Part A order set aside on the basis that the pending review (in Part B), was now moot, given that his appeals in the HSF matter had all been rejected and he was now “following a fair process” as, ordered by the court.
But the Federation opposed the appeal. It said an interim order was not appealable in law. Also, that it had now amended the relief it was claiming in Part B and it was raising distinct issues that had not been considered in the HSF matter.

The minister’s main contention was that the interim order could not be sustained because the review could not be litigated, given the HSF ruling. He thus claimed the order was “redundant” and should be set aside, with costs.
But the Federation argued that this was not so because it had amended its relief in the review and was now seeking a declarator that any decision to stop the ZEP regime was unconstitutional.

Judge David Unterhalter, writing for the court, said the Federation had explained that the basis for this was that the minister did not have the power to undo or revise the protections that ZEP holders have enjoyed over a long period, and that only Parliament could do so.
Also, the Federation raised an issue of law that was not part of the HSF case: that the Immigration Act permits the Minister to withdraw a right for “good cause”.

The minister, so it would be contended in Part B, did not establish the jurisdictional fact of good cause in this matter. He had acted without legal authority in doing so. And would continue to do so if he again sought to revoke the ZEP.
Judge Unterhalter said while both the HSF and federation matters had “covered the same territory”, the Federation had now raised other distinctive grounds.
These included the fact that the minister had not established “good cause”, given that the circumstances prevailing in Zimbabwe have not materially changed.
And the minister had made an error in law in that his decision was based upon the belief ZEP holders would be required to leave South Africa. But those who had fled would qualify as refugees and would enjoy protection under the principle of non-refoulement and may not be deported.

These grounds were not covered in the HSF review findings.
“The HSF order remitted the matter back to the minister for reconsideration and to do so following a fair process,” Judge Unterhalter wrote.
“The premise of the HSF order is that it is open to the minister to exercise his powers under the Immigration Act to decide whether or not to extend the ZEP regime.

“The declaratory relief (by the Federation), by contrast, is predicated upon the proposition that the minister cannot exercise this power and no point would be served in sending it back to the minister. Rather the ZEP holders enjoy constitutional rights to remain in South Africa, unless Parliament decides otherwise.”
Judge Ulterhalter said this, if granted, was “considerably more far-reaching, because it reaches into the future and is not based upon a reconsideration by the minister of his decision to terminate the ZEP regime”.

Thus the minister’s redundancy argument “cannot hold”.
He said the Part A order was not redundant because it was dependent on the final relief granted in the Part B review on grounds not determined in the HSF judgment.

In dismissing the appeal, and ordering the minister to pay the costs, Judge Unterhalter said: “I should not be understood to make any finding as to the prospects of the grounds advanced by the Federation. That awaits adjudication in the high court, in due course.”

Accusations of ‘state-enabled xenophobia’ flew in the Gauteng Division of the High Court on Wednesday as SAPS members and Home Affairs officials denied colluding with the anti-migrant group Operation Dudula.

Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX), the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the South African Police Service (SAPS) returned to the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday for the second day of the legal challenge by KAAX and several other rights organisations against the anti-migrant organisation Operation Dudula.

As on the previous day, the gallery was packed with members of civil society organisations that supported the application. The only difference on Wednesday was the significant number of Operation Dudula members, who sat side by side in the gallery with the migrants they oppose.
Operation Dudula’s president, Zandile Dabula, was also present in the courtroom as the legal representatives for the DHA and SAPS presented their heads of argument in opposition to the applicants’ legal challenge.

On Tuesday, Daily Maverick reported that KAAX, the South African Informal Traders Forum, the Inner City Federation and Abahlali baseMjondolo filed the legal challenge in 2023 to ask the court to prevent Operation Dudula from assaulting, harassing or intimidating migrants and to stop Operation Dudula from impeding access to healthcare services and schools for the children of international migrants.
The DHA and SAPS were added as respondents to the application for allegedly failing to protect vulnerable communities from Operation Dudula’s xenophobic conduct and for allegedly colluding with or supporting the group’s activities.

State-enabled xenophobia
One of the arguments that advocate Jason Brickhill, representing the applicants, made on Tuesday was that the SAPS and the DHA colluded with Operation Dudula.
“There is clear evidence that SAPS officials have, at times, acted in concert with Operation Dudula, entering buildings and detaining individuals identified as foreign nationals, including children, without any lawful basis. That sort of collusion undermines constitutional protections and amounts to state-enabled xenophobia,” said Brickhill.

Advocate William Mokhare SC, representing Home Affairs, countered by saying, “To suggest that meeting with Dudula translates to collusion is an absurd proposition. Collusion is a very strong word; it has very strong connotations, it’s a serious allegation that cannot be lightly made, it must be made when one has got evidence.”

Mokhare said the applicants’ bid to interdict the minister of home affairs from colluding with Operation Dudula was inappropriate, and there were other remedies available.

He defended section 41 of the Immigration Act, which the applicants sought to have declared constitutionally invalid because it allows for warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion. He argued that the legislation does not authorise warrantless raids or searches of homes but simply allows immigration officers or the police to request the identification of any person, not just immigrants.
The SAPS legal team also denied all the allegations made by the applicants.
Addressing the applicants’ complaint that the SAPS had breached its constitutional duties, advocate W Isaaks maintained that the SAPS had acted within its constitutional and legislative obligations.
He denied that the SAPS failed to investigate complaints of criminal conduct by Operation Dudula members against migrants, claiming the police responded to and investigated incidents when complaints were made.

Isaaks dealt with some of the examples the applicants cited on Tuesday, including that officers at the Norwood Police Station refused to investigate and pursue charges against Operation Dudula members who threatened and assaulted traders in Orange Grove in 2022 and looted their businesses.

He said the police had opened a case of intimidation and malicious damage in that instance, and provided a case number (251/03/2022).
He turned to the killing of Elvis Nyathi, who was beaten to death by a mob in an incident that was allegedly incited by Operation Dudula in April 2022, and for which the applicants argued that no members of the anti-migrant group were arrested.
Isaaks argued that SAPS investigation into the murder led to arrests, though the case was later struck from the roll due to witness non-cooperation, which falls under the National Prosecuting Authority’s purview.

He denied that the police colluded with Operation Dudula, saying that joint operations with the DHA were lawful and necessary for identification and verification purposes, and were not conducted at the instigation of Operation Dudula.
Judgment was reserved.

‘No one will stop us’
After the proceedings concluded, members of Operation Dudula gathered outside the court, singing, dancing and bandying about the word “Makwerekwere” (a derogatory term for African foreign nationals). At the centre of the camouflage-clad crowd was the organisation’s president, Dabula.
She told Daily Maverick Operation Dudula only learnt on social media that the proceedings were happening. (The group was in fact emailed the founding affidavit in 2023.)

Responding to allegations that members of the SAPS accompanied them on raids and that foreign nationals had been arrested outside the scope of the law, Dabula said, “They’re talking about things that they don’t have proof of. For instance, they’re talking about SAPS accompanying us on our operations. There’s nothing like that.”

She insisted that law enforcement members were present only to verify documents and that any document checks followed legal procedures.
“Every time we ask you to produce your document, you’ll see or hear us saying, ‘Go, the SAPS will verify your document. Because we know we can’t physically even look at their documents … it’s within their rights, but also there’s a citizen’s arrest that we can apply as citizens of this country.”
She said Operation Dudula was the “mouthpiece of South Africans” and the nation was facing an “immigration crisis”.
“People are … seeing us as the only hope that talks about this foreign issue, and we don’t mince our words. When we’re saying that we want them to leave, we mean just that,” she said.

KAAX’s Dale McKinley said Operation Dudula did not speak on behalf of the South African public.
“There is a very small vocal minority, which is amplified on social media to make it appear as if large populations of South Africa are xenophobic. This is the point that we were making about Operation Dudula; they contested the elections as a political party, and they got fewer votes than we have members,” said McKinley

A Relative's Visa may be issued by the Department to a foreigner who is a member of the immediate family of a citizen or a resident, providing that such citizen or resident provides the prescribed financial assurances.

This only applies to first level of kinship i.e: Brother, Sister, Mother, Father.

The period of validity of the Visa shall be determined by the financial assurance provided, but will not exceed a period of 24 months at a time. A relative Visa issued to a relationship shall lapse upon the dissolution of the relationship relationship and the Department may at any time satisfy itself that a good faith relationship relationship exists and or continues to exist.

Let SA Migration Intl handle your entire case from filling out the documentation to processing the application.

www.samigration.com

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm


Get More Info By Following Our Page: https://www.youtube.com/@samigration

Do you have a Zimbabwean ZEP Permit - Need to Change ?

Check all information directly with VFS / DHA or a registered immigration practitioner or immigration lawyer this circulating in your community , it is not factually correct , this is for ZEP holders . If you are unskilled Department of Labour will definitely not grant a waiver , get professional advice from a registered immigration practitioner

Good evening dear members. We now have Immigration Directive 12 of 2021. I would like to encourage all of you without or with professional qualifications etc who would want to apply for a General Work permit later to apply for a Waiver within the next 9 days and Department of Home Affairs have said they will process your waivers applications before 31 March 2022. If your waiver applications is successful and granted, you will be able to apply for a General Work Permit without a need to have documentations required like certificates, Saqa documentation, police clearance, newspaper adverts etc. They will only then need your employers letter, valid passport and covid vaccination certificate to apply for the General Work Permit when your waiver applications is successful.

What is a Waiver?

It is an application made in South Africa and adjudicated by the Department of Home Affairs. In order to apply for a waiver the applicant must be in possession of a valid refugee or immigration status (eg a valid ZEP Permit and not an expired one).
The minister yesterday issues Directive 12 of 2021 and on (a) he said he will need until 31 March 2022 to make outcomes for all Waivers applied for. And anyone who doesn't have a Waiver or General Work Permit Application by 1 April 2022 will be described as "undesirable" and will have to to 31 December 2022 to pack bags and kids and return to Zimbabwe without being formally charged at the border or legal port of exit to avoid being deported

Here is fake link https://www.vfsvisaonline.com/DHAFOSOnli.../gatewaypage.aspx “
Sa Migration says
“ Here is part of the scam , the link above is a real VFS visa page and when you capture the page it goes back to home page and it goes nowhere , it was taken out of context – check the real VFS pages https://www.vfsglobal.com/dha/southafrica/ “

Please contact us for the real information , following the advice will lead you to heart break
How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com whatsapp me on:
+27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com
Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm


Get More Info By Following Our Page: https://www.youtube.com/@samigration