The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by Zimbabwean national Fidel Isheanesu Mugunzva to extend the time allowed to challenge a decision by...
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by Zimbabwean national Fidel Isheanesu Mugunzva to extend the time allowed to challenge a decision by South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs declaring him a prohibited person after authorities discovered that his permanent resident permit was fraudulent.
Mugunzva, 40, was born in Zimbabwe and first entered South Africa on 11 September 2011 using a visitor’s visa. The visa expired on 2 October 2011. He later obtained another visitor’s visa entry on 29 October 2011 before leaving South Africa on 4 November 2011. His final lawful stay under the visitor’s visa expired on 28 November 2011.
Advertisement
While in South Africa in 2011, Mugunzva sought employment as a business plan writer. According to court papers, the owner of a company where he had applied for work informed him that he could not be employed while holding a visitor’s visa and referred him to an immigration agent identified as Wendy.
Mugunzva said he approached the agent to understand his immigration options and had no intention of applying for permanent residence. He said he left without completing any application forms after Wendy asked questions about his family and promised to contact him later.
In early 2012, Wendy allegedly informed him that his name appeared on a Home Affairs list and suggested that his mother might have applied for him and his siblings under an amnesty programme introduced by the South African government after 1994. Although Mugunzva had doubts because his mother knew nothing about such an application, he accepted the explanation given to him.
At the end of May 2012, Wendy informed him that his permanent resident permit was ready for collection. Mugunzva paid her R12 000 for the document.
On 12 June 2012, he re-entered South Africa through the Oshoek border post between South Africa and eSwatini using the permanent resident permit. According to court documents, he used the permit for about eight years without any problems. During that period, he travelled in and out of the country, opened bank accounts and secured employment with Sanlam. Border officials processed the document on several occasions without raising concerns.
In 2018, after losing his permanent residence letter, Mugunzva applied through VFS Pretoria for proof of permanent residence. However, on 26 February 2020, Home Affairs informed him that the permit number did not exist in its records and that the document was fraudulent. The department also declared him a prohibited person.
Mugunzva returned to Zimbabwe in August 2022 and told the court that his irregular income and financial difficulties prevented him from pursuing legal action sooner. He said he operated a small academic research consultancy and later started a handyman business involved in repairs and renovations. He also stated that he only received the Minister’s written decision in November 2023.
He argued that Home Affairs never gave him an opportunity to make representations before declaring him a prohibited person and that he was never provided with reasons for the original decision. He also maintained that he lacked the financial resources to hire lawyers.
However, Acting Judge Adrian Montzinger questioned the evidence provided to support these claims. The judge said Mugunzva’s bank statements and explanations about cash payments were not convincing. He also noted that claims that his sisters funded the litigation were not supported by affidavits and that evidence regarding attempts to obtain legal assistance did not fully support his argument that he was too poor to proceed earlier.
Despite these concerns, the court found that Mugunzva had reasonable prospects of success if the matter had been heard on its merits. The judge found that Home Affairs failed to give him an opportunity to make representations before declaring him a prohibited person and did not properly investigate whether he knowingly participated in fraud or whether he had been misled by the immigration agent.
However, the court ruled that the lengthy delay in bringing the review application outweighed those prospects of success. As a result, the application for an extension of the 180-day review period was dismissed.
