![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg/640px-Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg&w=640&q=50)
Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others is an important decision in South African constitutional law and immigration law. It was delivered in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 7 June 2000. In a unanimous judgment written by Justice Kate O'Regan, the court held that the constitutional right to dignity contained implicit protections for the right to family life and the institution of marriage.
Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others |
Decided | 7 June 2000 (2000-06-07) |
Docket nos. | CCT 35/99 |
Citations | [2000] ZACC 8; 2000 (3) SA 936; 2000 (8) BCLR 837 |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (1) SA 997 (C) in the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | O'Regan J (unanimous) |
In particular, provisions of the Aliens Control Act, 1991 were found to be inconsistent with the right to dignity insofar as they permitted immigration officials wide discretion to refuse residence permits to the foreign spouses of South Africans, thereby undermining the ability of married couples to cohabitate. The court held that when Parliament grants government officials such powers and others that touch on constitutional rights, it must lay down proper guidelines for exercising those powers in compliance with the Constitution.