Constitutional Court

Currently, disabled refugees in South Africa are excluded from accessing government-provided social assistance grants. The Strategic Litigation Unit represents a number of individual refugees who are disabled, and two refugee organisations that have refugee members who are disabled.

In this matter, a high school threatened disciplinary steps against our client’s daughter, a Tamil Hindu, for wearing a nose stud in expression of her cultural practices and religious beliefs. After the Durban Magistrate’s Equality Court handed down a judgement in favour of the school, the Unit stepped in to represent the learner and her mother with an appeal to the Natal High Court.

The Litigation Unit is currently representing a client who was atrociously tortured in his country of origin, Angola. After he applied for asylum in South Africa, the Department of Home Affairs took in excess of 2 years to determine our client’s status and reach the decision to reject his asylum claim. Thereafter, the Refugee Appeal Board also dismissed our client’s appeal against the rejection of his asylum application. The Appeal Board held the view that the conditions in Angola have improved to such an extent that they felt it was possible for our client to return there.

In this case, the Unit represents a Chinese national who has four children. The client initially came to South Africa after fleeing persecution on the basis of his political opinion. However, in the 12 years that he has been in South Africa, the client fathered 4 children with his wife.

In this matter, our client had been married in terms of Muslim personal law for 28 years. Upon her divorce, she instituted an action for a half share of her husband’s property and rehabilitative maintenance for 12 months. She did not succeed with this action.

The applicants seek confirmation of a High Court order declaring certain provisions of the Immigration Act (the Act) unconstitutional. The government opposes the application and appeals against the judgment.