Section 4(3) is a provision which was introduced into the Citizenship Act on 1 January 2013 by way of the South African Citizenship Amendment Act. It makes provision for individuals born in South Africa (SA) to foreign parents who have not been admitted to the Republic for permanent residence, and who have lived in the Republic from the time of birth until obtaining the age of majority, to apply for citizenship, if their births had been registered in accordance with the Births and Deaths Registrations’ Act.
In 2014, after being faced with the realisation that their refugee status was to be withdrawn as part of the Angolan repatriation process, the brothers (born and raised in SA of Angolan refugee parents) pursued every avenue to regularise their stay in SA including obtaining temporary study permits to allow them to finish their schooling. After having been advised by a legal NGO that they were in fact eligible for citizenship under section 4(3), the brothers approached the DHA for assistance in applying for citizenship. They were however turned away by the relevant DHA officials.
Our Practice agreed to assist the brothers on a pro bono basis and made applications on their behalf by way of affidavit. This was the only way that an application could be made as the DHA had failed to put in place the necessary administrative procedures to apply for citizenship. But our attempts to assist them in this manner were thwarted by the DHA and as a result, we were forced to bring a High Court application in June 2017 to enforce their rights. The primary relief sought in the High Court was that the DHA’s failure to make a decision in their applications be reviewed and that the Minister be directed to grant each of them citizenship in terms of section 4(3) of the Citizenship Act.
The application succeeded with costs and in March 2019, Yacoob J ordered the Minister of Home Affairs to grant the applications of each of the brothers for South African citizenship in terms of section 4(3) of the Citizenship Act within 10 days of the order. The learned Judge was of the view that exceptional circumstances existed which rendered it appropriate for the court to order that the applications be granted.
Considering it in the public interest to do so, in August 2019 Yacoob J granted leave to the DHA to appeal to the SCA only on the question whether it was competent in the particular circumstances of this case to order the Minister to grant (as opposed to consider) the brothers’ applications for citizenship.
In a compelling judgment handed down in favour of the brothers, Ponnan JA and Matojane AJA (in which Cachalia and Nicholls JJA and Poyo-Dlwati AJA concurred) recognized the importance of citizenship by quoting Hannah Arendt in their opening paragraph:
‘[c]itizenship is more fundamental than civil rights. ’‘For Arendt, the issue was not simply a question of statelessness, but one of common humanity, and the responsibility we have to one another as human beings who share the world in common. As long as we live in a world that is territorially organized into national states, a stateless person “is not simply expelled from one country” they are “expelled from humanity.”’
The SCA considered the requirements for citizenship in terms of section 4(3) and confirmed that the brothers met the requirements including the fourth requirement that their births had been registered in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act. The SCA also rejected the DHA’s defence that the brothers “never applied” for citizenship because, so it was argued, they failed to make use of the correct application forms. The SCA pointed out that this argument was “cynical and self-serving” as the Minister had to date failed to create the necessary application forms for section 4(3) citizenship applications. Despite the narrow scope of the appeal, the DHA also argued that it had no record of the brothers’ applications â€` an argument the SCA rejected as “plainly

disingenuous”.
The SCA held that the DHA had every opportunity to investigate and respond to the claims made by the brothers, but instead in their answering affidavit admitted the relevant allegations by the brothers that established that they met the requirements. It also rejected an attempt by the DHA to argue in the hearing that this (merely) constituted a “conditional admission” made exclusively for the purposes of the application. The SCA considered this argument to be “plainly untenable”.
In its judgment the SCA also considered the recent decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) in the matter of Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another where the CC recognised that there may be cases in which a court may need to give directions to the Executive despite the need to consider the doctrine of separation of powers.
The CC held that:
“These authorities must also find application in determining the appropriate relief in a case dealing with citizenship. The reason for this is that citizenship does not depend on a discretionary decision; rather, it constitutes a question of law. The amended Citizenship Act does not require the Department of Home Affairs to consider any public interest when deciding whether or not to recognise a person’s citizenship. Instead, if the requisite conditions to acquire citizenship are satisfied, the Department of Home Affairs is required to recognise this citizenship and proceed with the concomitant administrative procedures, without any further consideration.”
Relying on this dictum the SCA held that the DHA’s argument that the matter had to be referred back to the Minister was pointless, given that the brothers clearly met the requirements of s4(3) and therefore that the appeal was contrived and served no purpose. The SCA also held that the appeal was “unsustainable as a matter of law” given the Chisuse judgment. It accordingly dismissed the appeal with the costs of two counsel.
The only issue that remained, was the issue of a punitive cost order. In their heads of argument filed with the SCA on 3 August 2020, the brothers had argued that the Chisuse judgment effectively disposed of the issue on appeal in their favour and accordingly invited the DHA to withdraw their appeal. In the event that the DHA failed to do so, they requested that the SCA grant a punitive costs order against the DHA and consider directing personal cost orders against the relevant DHA officials who decided to persist with the appeal.
The SCA agreed that the DHA “should have reconsidered its position” upon receipt of the brothers’ heads of argument which it failed to do and that it would therefore be unfair to expect the brothers to bear the costs caused by the appeal after 3 August 2020. The court noted that:
“The question whether a party should bear the full brunt of a costs order on an attorney and own client scale must be answered with reference to what would be just and equitable in the circumstances of a particular case. A court is bound to secure a just and fair outcome. More than 100 years ago, Innes CJ stated the principle that costs on an attorney and client scale are awarded when a court wishes to mark its disapproval of the conduct of a litigant.”
Thus, the SCA granted costs in favour of the brothers on an attorney client scale but decided against a personal cost order as it was of the view that the requirements for same were not met in this matter.
The SCA judgment hopefully brings an end to an arduous struggle by the brothers for recognition of their right to the citizenship and will assist an entire class of similarly situated vulnerable people to rightfully claim their birthright
www.samigration.com V.3450

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article