High Court rejects Zimbabwean’s bid to overturn Home Affairs ban over fake permit

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by a Zimbabwean man seeking to review a Home Affairs decision that declared him a prohibited person after he used a fraudulent permanent resident permit. The court found that the applicant’s delay in bringing the review application outweighed other legal concerns, despite recognising problems with how Home Affairs handled his case.

How the permit came into play

The applicant, Fidel Isheanesu Mugunzva, was born in Zimbabwe and first entered South Africa on a visitor’s visa on 11 September 2011. That visa expired on 2 October 2011, and he later obtained a second visitor visa on 29 October 2011 before departing on 4 November 2011. His last lawful travel under a visitor visa expired on 28 November 2011.

While in South Africa in 2011 he sought work as a business plan writer. The company owner told him a visitor’s visa did not permit employment and referred him to an immigration agent named Wendy for advice. According to Mugunzva, he did not have a pre-determined objective to acquire permanent residence but wanted information on his options. He said Wendy took details about his family and later undertook to revert to him without him completing any application forms.

At the end of May 2012, Wendy contacted Mugunzva and told him to collect a permanent resident permit. Mugunzva paid Wendy R12 000 and on 12 June 2012 re-entered South Africa through the Oshoek border post using the permanent resident permit. He used the document for eight years to travel, open bank accounts and for employment, including work at Sanlam, according to court papers.

Fraud discovered and Home Affairs action

In 2018 Mugunzva lost the permanent resident permit letter and applied to VFS Pretoria for proof of permanent residence using Home Affairs’ DHA Form 46. Home Affairs informed him on 26 February 2020 that it could not find the permit number, that the permit did not exist and that the permit was fraudulent. The department also informed him that, from that day, he was designated a prohibited person.

Mugunzva returned to Zimbabwe in August 2022. He told the court he was unemployed, ran a small consultancy and started a handyman company with irregular income. He also said he received the Minister’s written decision on 23 November 2023.

Poverty, delay and procedural failures

Mugunzva told the court he was too poor to pursue legal review of Home Affairs’ decisions and that he was not given an opportunity to make representations or provided reasons before being declared a prohibited person. He later produced bank statements the court said were not convincing and did not corroborate his assertions about cash payments or loans from his sisters to fund litigation.

Acting Judge Adrian Montzinger noted problems with Mugunzva’s evidence about seeking legal assistance; the judge found the documentary record of those efforts inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that he was too poor to litigate.

Merits recognised but application time-barred

On the merits the court found that Mugunzva had reasonable prospects of success and that Home Affairs failed to give him an opportunity to make representations before declaring him a prohibited person. The court also found the department did not properly investigate whether Mugunzva knowingly participated in fraud or was a victim of the agent.

Despite these findings, the judge concluded that Mugunzva’s excessive delay in bringing the review application was decisive and outweighed those prospects of success. The application for an extension of the 180-day period to review the department’s decision was therefore dismissed.

What the judgment highlights

• The case raises questions about the role of agents in immigration processes and the risks of fraudulent documents entering official channels.
• The ruling underscores the legal consequences of delay in challenging administrative decisions, even where procedural shortcomings by officials are identified.

The court’s decision balances procedural fairness concerns against statutory time limits for review applications, with delay proving fatal to the applicant’s case.