Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Vindiren Magadzire and Another

Since 2009 the Minister of Home Affairs granted exemptions under s 31(2) of the Immigration Act to allow undocumented Zimbabwean nationals to remain lawfully in South Africa, culminating in the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP) regime. In November 2021 the Minister announced that the ZEP regime would not be extended, with permits due to expire on 31 December 2021, later issuing Immigration Directive No 1 of 2021 granting a 12‑month grace period to allow affected persons to regularise their status. Vindiren Magadzire, a ZEP holder, and the Zimbabwe Immigration Federation NPC instituted High Court proceedings in two parts: Part A seeking interim relief preventing arrest, detention, deportation and loss of associated rights pending final determination; and Part B seeking final relief to review and set aside the Minister’s decision not to extend the ZEP regime. During the same motion court week, the Gauteng Division of the High Court heard a separate application, Helen Suzman Foundation v Minister of Home Affairs, challenging the same ministerial decision and granted final review relief, setting aside the decision and remitting it to the Minister for reconsideration, with interim protections for ZEP holders. Despite this, the High Court granted the interim Part A relief sought by the Federation. The Minister appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, contending that the Part A order was redundant, moot, or barred by res judicata or issue estoppel in light of the Helen Suzman Foundation order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment clarifies that interim interdicts may be appealable in the interests of justice even where they lack finality, and that interim relief is not necessarily redundant merely because similar final relief has been granted in parallel litigation. It provides important guidance on the limits of mootness, res judicata and issue estoppel in complex public‑law litigation involving overlapping reviews, and underscores the discretionary nature of interim relief in administrative and constitutional challenges affecting large groups of vulnerable non‑citizens.