Koyabe v Minister for Home Affairs:
The case involved Kenyan nationals residing in South Africa whose
temporary residence permits had been revoked by the Department of
Home Affairs. The applicants sought to challenge the revocation on the
grounds that the process followed by the Department was procedurally
unfair. They contended that they had not been provided with sufficient
reasons for the revocation nor given the opportunity to respond to the
allegations against them before the decision was made.
The applicants initiated a judicial review, seeking the court’s intervention
to challenge the administrative actions taken against them. Their primary
argument was based on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)
and the constitutional right to just administrative action guaranteed under
Section 33 of the South African Constitution.
The Department of Home Affairs revoked their permits, claiming non-
compliance with immigration laws. The applicants were not notified or
given reasons for the revocation and were not afforded an opportunity to
challenge the decision before it was made. The applicants sought relief
under PAJA, which provides for procedural fairness in administrative
actions and allows individuals to challenge decisions that affect their
rights. They argued that they were entitled to be informed of the reasons
for the revocation and given an opportunity to be heard before their
permits were cancelled.
The key legal issue in Koyabe v Minister for Home Affairs centred around
procedural fairness in administrative decisions under the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Specifically, the applicants challenged
the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to revoke their residence
permits without giving them prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Additionally, the case addressed whether the applicants were required to
exhaust internal remedies provided under the Immigration Act before
seeking judicial review.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that the revocation of
residence permits was an administrative action under PAJA, requiring
procedural fairness. The court found that the Department of Home Affairs
had failed to provide reasons or allow the applicants a chance to respond,
thus violating their right to procedural fairness.
However, the court also emphasized the importance of exhausting internal
remedies before approaching the courts, as outlined in Section 7(2) of
PAJA. The court held that the applicants had not exhausted these remedies
and therefore denied judicial review at this stage, directing the applicants
to first pursue internal remedies.
