South Africa: Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Sakharov
Published: 22/Jun/2026
Source: High Court of South Africa, Gauteng
(2024-044391) [2026] ZAGPPHC 648 (22 June 2026)
Brief Facts
[2] It is common cause that on or about 9 December 2013 the respondent was granted a permanent residence permit to reside in South Africa. It is also common cause that he was married to a South African citizen for a period in excess of 5 years. On 13 November 2023 the respondent attended at the offices of the Department of Home Affairs to confirm the requirements for an application for citizenship. The attendant official stated that only an application for verification of his permanent residence permit could be submitted. On 6 June 2024, the respondent’s junior counsel, Ms Granova, was called by an official from the same department requesting a clearer copy of the permanent residence certificate, which was duly furnished. It is common cause that the respondent’s application for citizenship was refused and that only an application for verification of the permanent residence permit could be submitted.
[3] On or about 23 April 2024, an application to this court was sought for the review of the decision of the department in its refusal of the respondent’s application for citizenship by naturalisation. The matter was set down and hear on the unopposed motion roll of 9 September 2024. On order was granted by the Court on the following terms:
“1. The failure and/or refusal by the first and/or second respondent(s) to allow submission of and/or accept an application to have the applicant’s birth registered in terms of the provisions of the Births and deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 is reviewed and set aside;
2. The applicant is declared a citizen of the Republic of South Africa by naturalisation in terms of the Citizenship Act 88 of 1995, as amended;
3. The first and/or second respondent(s) are ordered to take all necessary steps within 30 (thirty) days of the date of this Order, to:
3.1 Register the applicant’s birth in terms of Section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, as amended;
3.2 Issue the applicant with written recognition of his citizenship of the Republic of South Africa by naturalization as contemplated in Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 88 of 1995, as amended; and
3.3 Issue the applicant with an identity document as contemplated in the Identification Act 68 of 1997, as amended;
4. Should the first and/or second respondent(s) fail to timeously comply with paragraph 3 above, the applicant is granted leave to approach this Honourable Court for an order for contempt and committal of the said respondents to goal on the same papers, supplemented and/or amended where necessary.
5. The respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and several, the one paying, the other to be absolved, on Scale B party and party costs.”
Issues in dispute
[4] The rescission application is opposed by the respondents. So too is the application for contempt being opposed by the applicants. I will commence with the main application being that of the rescission.
[5] The first issue in dispute to be determined by this court is whether the applicants have made out a case for condonation for the later application for the rescission of the judgment. Then the court will have to determine whether the applicants have an acceptable explanation for their default to oppose the review application. Thirdly, the court must determine whether the applicants have a bona fide defence to the respondent’s application for review and whether they were in wilful default in respect of the compliance with the order of 9 September 2024. The final issue is that of contempt of the order – that will be dealt with after the main application of rescission.
Read further on SAFLII: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2026/648.html