| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:02:10Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:02:10Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2003-12-02 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2003 (5) SA 281 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2003 (8) BCLR 838 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2189 | |
| dc.title | Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates In re: Eisenberg & Associates v Minister of Home Affairs and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT15/03 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT15/03 | en |
| dc.contributor.judge | Chaskalson CJ | |
| dc.date.judgment | 27 June 2003 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2189/Full%20judgment%20%28334%20Kb%29-865.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Chaskalson CJ writing judgment for the unanimous Court found that the regulations promulgated in terms of section 52 of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 were not subject to section 7 of the sane Act, because the Act did not specify such a condition. Further, it was found that the Minister complied with requirements set out in section 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, which deals with administrative action affecting the public, upheld the appeal. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal and appeal from a decision of Cape High Court: Eisenberg & Associates v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2003 (5) BCLR 514 (C). |