A couple has won a court battle to have a regulation in the Birth and Deaths Registrations Act declared unconstitutional and invalid.

Stock image

• A South African woman and her Bulgarian partner have won an application to have a regulation in the Birth and Deaths Registrations Act declared unconstitutional.

• Judge Mbulelo Jolwana in the Eastern Cape High Court found that it imposed discriminatory conditions for fathers who are unmarried and may be undocumented foreigners.

• The home affairs minister and department were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

A couple has won a court battle to have a regulation in the Birth and Deaths Registrations Act declared unconstitutional and invalid, after their son was not allowed to have his father`s name on his birth certificate because his father was in South Africa illegally.

In the Eastern Cape High Court in Gqeberha, Judge Mbulelo Jolwana came to the `ineluctable conclusion` that Regulation 12(2)(c) imposes discriminatory conditions in the recordal of fathers who are unmarried and who may be illegal foreigners in the children`s registration of birth.

The parents, Ms U and Mr V, sought legal recourse after their attempt to register Mr V as the baby`s father at the Department of Home Affairs.

Officials refused to make the entries in their records and issue an unabridged birth certificate for their infant because Mr V, a Bulgarian national, was in the country on an expired visa and, therefore, illegally.

According to court papers, they are not married but live as husband and wife.

A paternity test was required to prove fatherhood because he was not a South African citizen, and the couple was told that a court order declaring Mr V as the father, in addition to proof of paternity, would be required.

Section 11 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 provides for the amendment of the birth registration details if the father wishes to acknowledge himself as the father of a child born out of wedlock, subject to the submission of a conclusive proof of paternity.

The Minister of Home Affairs and the head of the provincial department`s office initially opposed the application, citing that the father was in the country illegally.

During the court proceedings, however, they made an about-turn and conceded to the relief sought without an explanation.

The applicants` legal team, however, persisted with a constitutional challenge, referring to the `considerable distress` the regulation had caused them and `continues to bedevil those children born in similar circumstances`.





`The respondents cannot plead ignorance about which regulation or subregulation is applicable and in which circumstances. The regulations are theirs and theirs alone, and the [minister`s] predecessor must be presumed to have known what he intended when he issued them and the [minister], likewise, when he enforced them,` Jolwana said in his judgement.

The department must be assumed to have consistent rules and policies and deal with people in similar circumstances as the couple, making the inquiry into constitutionality a matter of public importance, he added.

`Besides the issue of the rights of the affected minor children, even the parents of the children, must be attended to both professionally and competently by government officials, and mixed signals are totally unhelpful and utterly confusing. Their own rights to dignity and

to an efficient public service are implicated and are not without significance.`



The contested Regulation 12(2)(c) reads: `The person who acknowledges that he is the father of the child born out of wedlock must… have his fingerprints verified online against the national population register. Provided that in the event of the father being a non-South African citizen, he must submit a certified copy of his valid passport and visa or permit, permanent resident`s, identity document or refugee identity document.`

The couple contended that their child was prejudiced and discriminated against irrationally by the regulation because of the circumstances of his birth.

Jolwana agreed.

`There cannot be any cogent justification for such discrimination, and none was advanced. This is hardly surprising. If there was a proper basis for the discrimination on the basis of the illegality of this child`s father`s presence in this country, it escapes me why the [minister and department] have agreed to the amendment of the child`s registration records.

`After all, the father is still illegally in the country,` he said.

`It baffles me how the respondents, especially the minister, can consent to this child`s father`s details being entered into the birth registration records of this child and still argue that Regulation 12(2)(c) is valid and should remain extant.

`This would have the inevitable consequence of its continued enforcement by hapless officials of the department, a situation of total chaos, confusion and inconsistent application of the regulation.

`This surely should not be countenanced.`

Jolwana found the regulation to indeed be `clearly unconstitutional and irrational`.

`On the respondents` submissions, the event of the expiry of a visa must determine if the child who is born should be allowed to have a birth certificate with full details of his or her father. This defies all sense of logic,` he said.

`In this case, the father was not able to renew his visa for reasons that obviously had nothing to do with the child. As a result, his continued stay in this country became illegal.

`None of that has anything to do with the child and his right to have the identity of his father officially recognised, not for the father but most importantly, for the child.`

According to Jolwana, the irrationality of the regulation becomes more pronounced if regard is had to the fact that recognising, protecting, respecting and fulfilling the rights of the affected children does not in any way curtail the minister and department`s ability to deal with the fact of the illegality of the presence of their fathers in South Africa.

`For instance, the respondents are entitled to deport [Mr V] in the normal course or deal with him in any way they decide within the framework of the law as they should with any other illegal foreigner.

`Therefore, the entry of his details in the child`s birth certificate does not limit any of that. In fact, it only prejudices the child and does so unjustifiably and irrationally, without serving any useful purpose.`

The minister and department were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

www.samigration.com V.4631

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