High Court blocks mother's attempt to relocate sons to Israel amid visa issues
The High Court in Johannesburg refused a mother permission to relocate her two sons to Israel.
Image: AI Ron
A mother who is illegally in South Africa as her spousal visa has lapsed and is facing deportation was blocked by the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, from taking her two sons with her when she relocates to Israel.
The father of the children, a lawyer, vehemently opposed his children's relocation, and he told the court that he and his fiancée were able to provide a better home in South Africa for them.
Some of his concerns included that due to Israel facing a lot of conflict and war, he also feared that once the children turn 18, they may be forced to join the Israeli army.
In turning down the mother's application to take her sons with her to Israel, Judge Marcus Senyatsi remarked that compared to Israel, South Africa has no conscription laws and consequently, when they turn 18, they will continue to live as civilians as opposed to being soldiers in Israel.
The basis for the request for permanent relocation of the children to Israel was that her spousal visa, which she had obtained by virtue of her marriage which ended in divorce, had expired.
She obtained a fraudulent visa which resulted in her arrest and criminal conviction regarding the violation of the Immigration Act.
The children's father, on the other hand, said they were quite used to the lifestyle in South Africa as opposed to having to adjust to a new lifestyle in Israel.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Israel deports Greta Thunberg, bans her for 100 years after intercepting Gaza-bound aid boat
Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg talks to journalists upon her arrival to Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport, as she left Israel on a flight to Sweden via France, after she was detained along with other activists aboard a Gaza-bound aid boat, on June 10 Image: Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport, France Israel deported campaigner Greta Thunberg on a flight to Sweden via France on Tuesday, after detaining her along with other activists aboard a Gaza-bound aid boat. Of the 12 activists on board the Madleen, which was carrying food and supplies for Gaza, four including Thunberg agreed to be deported immediately, while all of them have been banned from Israel for 100 years, the rights group that legally represents some of them said in a statement. The remaining eight were taken into custody after they refused to leave Israel voluntarily, and brought before a detention review tribunal on Tuesday, rights group Adalah said. "The state asked the tribunal to keep the activists in custody until their deportation", Adalah said, adding that under Israeli law, individuals under deportation orders can be held for 72 hours before forcible removal. Israeli forces intercepted the boat, operated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, in international waters on Monday and towed it to the port of Ashdod. They then transferred them to Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, the foreign ministry said, from where Thunberg flew to France ahead of a scheduled flight to Sweden. On arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, 22-year-old Thunberg accused Israel of "kidnapping us in international waters and taking us against our will to Israel". "This is yet another intentional violation of rights that is added to the list of countless other violations that Israel is committing," she said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Four French activists who were also aboard the Madleen were set to face an Israeli judge, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. He had earlier posted on X that five would face court action and only one would depart voluntarily. Barrot told reporters that French diplomats had met with the six French nationals in Israel, and that French-Palestinian European MP Rima Hassan was among those who refused to leave voluntarily. The activists, from France, Germany, Brazil, Turkey, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, aimed to deliver humanitarian aid and break the Israeli blockade on the Palestinian territory. In what organisers called a "symbolic act", hundreds of participants in a land convoy crossed the border into Libya from Tunisia with the aim of reaching Gaza, whose entire population the UN has warned is at risk of famine. Dire humanitarian conditions Israel's interception of the Madleen, about 185 kilometres (115 miles) west of Gaza, was condemned by Turkey as a "heinous attack", while Iran denounced it as "a form of piracy" in international waters. In May, another Freedom Flotilla ship, the Conscience, was damaged in international waters off Malta as it headed to Gaza, with the activists blaming an Israeli drone attack. A 2010 Israeli commando raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was part of a similar attempt to breach the naval blockade of Gaza, left 10 civilians dead. On Sunday, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the blockade, in place since well before the Israel-Hamas war, was needed to prevent Palestinian militants from importing weapons. Israel is facing mounting pressure to allow more aid into Gaza to alleviate widespread shortages of food and basic supplies. Israel recently allowed some deliveries to resume after barring them for more than two months and began working with the newly formed, US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. But humanitarian agencies have criticised the GHF and the United Nations refuses to work with it, citing concerns over its practices and neutrality. Dozens of people have been killed near GHF distribution points since late May, according to Gaza's civil defence agency. The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said on Tuesday that in Gaza's north, "Israeli military operations have intensified in recent days, with mass casualties reported". An independent United Nations commission said on Tuesday that Israeli attacks on schools, religious and cultural sites in Gaza amount to war crimes and the crime against humanity of seeking to exterminate Palestinians. "In killing civilians sheltering in schools and religious sites, Israeli security forces committed the crime against humanity of extermination," the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said in a report. AFP has contacted Israeli authorities for comment on the report but has yet to receive a response. The Israeli military said it intercepted a projectile on Tuesday that had entered Israeli airspace from Gaza. It later called for residents to evacuate several neighbourhoods in the north of the Palestinian territory. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the war resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people on the Israeli side, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says at least 54,981 people, the majority civilians, have been killed in the territory since the start of the war. The UN considers these figures reliable. Out of 251 taken hostage during the Hamas attack, 54 are still held in Gaza including 32 the Israeli military says are dead. AFP
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
Johan Marais faces sentencing for the murder of activist Caiphus Nyoka in apartheid-era case
Former apartheid police officer Johan Marais, who was earlier found guilty of the 1987 murder of student activist Caiphus Nyoka, will be back in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. Image: Jacques Naude / Independent Newspapers Former apartheid police officer Johan Marais, who was earlier found guilty of the 1987 murder of student activist Caiphus Nyoka, will be back in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, on July 7, when arguments will be further presented regarding his possible sentence. The defence called a psychologist last week who assessed the 66-year-old Marais. She told the court that he has remorse for what he had done 38 years ago, and he wishes that he could undo what had happened. Apartheid-era police officer Johan Marais will be back in the dock in July to face punishment for his role in the killing of Caiphus Nyoka. Image: Zelda Venter Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The proceedings have been set down for a week in July, during which the family of Nyoka is expected to state their feelings about the case. In mitigation of sentence, psychologist Kirsten Clark pointed out that Marais is willing to partake in rehabilitation programmes, as well as his age, and the fact that he is not healthy. Marais, however, indicated that he would abide by a prison sentence if this was what the court had in mind. In August 1987, Nyoka was fatally shot at his family home in Daveyton by a police unit established to deal with terrorism. In 1988 and 1989, an inquest held before the Benoni Magistrate's Court resulted in a ruling that the police had acted in self-defence, despite evidence presented by the family suggesting otherwise. In 1997, Nyoka's mother, Saroma Nyoka, and his sister, Alegria Nyoka, approached the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to seek justice and to unearth the truth behind the killing. None of the police officers involved in Nyoka's killing applied for amnesty. Marais described his role as a section leader in Reaction Unit 6 (riot unit) based in Dunnottar at the time of the killing. He said on August 23, 1987, he and other members were called by their commander.
Eyewitness News
14 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on 'chaotic' court cases
A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with over-inflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. In the week of 5 May, he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with over-inflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' LOSING BY DEFAULT 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment, not extended to any other litigant — in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
