Browsed by
Month: July 2014

MHI staff paints doghouses for Mandela Day

MHI staff paints doghouses for Mandela Day

1

The Dogboxproject.com initiative launched their project for the 3rd consecutive year. In 67 minutes 67 doghouses had to be painted by 67 teams. After the doghouses were decorated they would be donated to the welfare organisation of the teams’ choice.

MHI immediately entered 10 teams as their contribution towards celebrating former President Nelson Mandela’s legacy on Saturday 19 July 2014.

There was an air of excitement as the decoration of the doghouses were discussed and planned. Our friends at Ultra Pro Waterproofing heard about our endeavour and promptly offered a donation of paint, brushes and paint rollers. Each doghouse would also receive a blanket and a bag of dog food.

On Saturday morning one and all arrived, and after all the measuring and fitting was done we commenced with the big effort at 10:00!

2

Everyone joined in – families, couples, siblings and even grandpa!

3 4 5

6 7 8

9

This was truly a team effort!

The real winners, however, were the animals of Blikkiesdorp in Delft. MHI donated their 10 doghouses and our friends at Rovic Leers added their contribution of 5 to Clarina Hanekom’s Tin Can Town initiative which aims at improving the lives of Blikkiesdorp’s animals.

10 11 12

The first doghouses have already been delivered and there was not one dog without an extra wag in its tail!

MHI personeel verf hondehokke vir Mandeladag

MHI personeel verf hondehokke vir Mandeladag

1Die Dogboxproject.com inisiatief het vir die 3de jaar hulle projek van stapel gestuur. Daar moes 67 hondehokke deur 67 spanne geverf word binne 67 minute.

Nadat die hokke versier is, word dit geskenk aan die welsynsorganisasie van jou keuse.

MHI het dadelik 10 spanne ingeskryf om Saterdag 19 Julie 2014 hulle bydrae tot oud President Nelson Mandela se nalatenskap te lewer.

Daar het  groot opgewondenheid geheers terwyl die hokke se verfraaiing bespreek en beplan is. Ons vriende by Ultra Pro Waterproofing het gehoor van ons inskrywing en dadelik aangebied om die verf, kwaste en rollers te skenk. Elke hok sou ook ‘n kombers en ‘n sak hondekos gekry.

Saterdagoggend het aangebreek en almal was daar! Ons het gemeet en gepas en bespiegel en 10:00 weggespring!

2

Almal was daar, gesinne, getroudes, verliefdes, sussies en selfs oupa het ook kom hand bysit!

3 4 5

6 7 8

9

Hierdie was voorwaar ‘n spanpoging!

Maar die werklike wenners is die diere van Blikkiesdorp. MHI het hulle 10 hokke en ons vriende by Rovic Leers het hulle 5 hokke ook geskenk aan Clarina Hanekom se Tin Can Town inisiatief wat hulle beywer om die diere van Blikkiesdorp in Delft se lewens te verbeter.

10 11 12

Die eerste hokke is reeds afgelewer en daar was nie een stert wat nie gewaai het nie!

True love, or easy paycheck?

True love, or easy paycheck?

A1blThe issues that are dealt with in this article is whether a partner is entitled to maintenance from the other partner in terms of a Divorce Order if the partner that is asking for maintenance, is living with / or has a new relationship, where that partner is already maintaining him / her. We will deal with case law and the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998.

You’re soon to be ex-wife has moved on and is now happily living with a new partner. They are in a stable, supportive relationship and her new partner doesn’t seem short of cash.

Everyone is living happily ever after, so why should you pay maintenance to your ex-wife?

The judgment of Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19 has reference. The issue in this case is whether a husband is obliged to pay maintenance to his former wife, who is involved in a relationship with another man, after divorce.

The duty of support

Neither spouse has a statutory right to maintenance. The language in the Divorce Act is clearly discretionary and the ex-spouse seeking an award for maintenance has no right as such. The court will consider the following factors before deciding whether to award spousal maintenance:

  1. The existing or prospective means of each party
  2. Their respective earning capacities
  3. Their financial needs and obligations
  4. Their age
  5. The duration of the marriage
  6. Their standard of living prior to the divorce
  7. Their conduct, if relevant, to the breakdown of the marriage
  8. An order for the division of assets
  9. Any other factor which in the court`s opinion, should be taken into account.

The discretionary power of the court to make a maintenance award includes the power to make no award at all. Our law favours the ‘clean break’ principle, which basically means that after a divorce the parties should become economically independent of each other as soon as possible.

Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19

Through a long line of cases dealing exclusively with maintenance pendente lite (awaiting litigation), it has become customary not to award maintenance to a spouse who is living in a permanent relationship with another partner.

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court of Appeal  gave an interesting judgment in the matter of Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19. The question raised in this matter was inter alia whether it would be against public policy for a man to pay maintenance to his wife while she is living with another man.

The parties, who were married to each other in December 1972, were divorced in January 2011, after many years living apart and many legal battles. In terms of the Divorce Order, the Appellant (the former husband) was ordered to pay the Respondent the sum of R2 000-00 per month as maintenance with effect from 1 February 2011. With leave of the High Court, the Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal solely against the maintenance order.

By the time the Divorce Order was granted, both parties had formed relationships with other partners, and the Respondent had been living for some three years with another man who fully and unconditionally maintained her.

Relying upon judgments such as Dodo v Dodo 1990 (2) SA 77 (W) at 89G; Carstens v Carstens 1985 (2) SA 351 (SE) at 353F; SP v HP 2009 (5) SA 223 (O) , it was argued that it would be against public policy for a woman to be supported by two men at the same time.

The court was of the opinion that while there are no doubt members of society who would endorse that view, it rather speaks of values from times past and the court was of the opinion that in the modern, more liberal age in which we live, public policy demands that a person who cohabits with another should not for that reason alone, be barred from claiming maintenance from his or her spouse.

However, in light of facts of the present case, where the Respondent was being fully maintained by the man with whom she had been living with for years, the Respondent failed to show that she was entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband.  The Appeal therefore succeeded, and the maintenance order was set aside.

Therefore, if you feel that you are currently paying your ex-partner maintenance which he / she do not deserve, contact your legal representative and take back the money that you worked so hard to obtain!

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Ware liefde, of maklike geld?

Ware liefde, of maklike geld?

A1blDie kwessies wat ons in hierdie artikel hanteer is of ‘n persoon onderhoud kan vra van hul gewese man / vrou as hul al in ‘n nuwe verhouding is en saam die man / vrou bly, by wie hulle reeds finansiele ondersteuning ontvang. Ons sal na regspraak en die Onderhouds Wet 99 van 1998 kyk.

Jou ex-vrou het aanbeweeg en is nou gelukkig saam met ‘n nuwe man. Hulle is in ‘n stabiele, ondersteunende verhouding en haar nuwe maat lyk nie kort van kontant nie.

Almal is gelukkig in hul lewe, so hoekom moet jy onderhoud betaal aan jou ex-vrou?

Die uitspraak van Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012]ZASCA 19 het betrekking. Die probleem in hierdie geval is of ‘n man verplig is om onderhoud te betaal aan sy gewese vrou wat betrokke is in ‘n verhouding met ‘n ander man, na die egskeiding.

Die plig van ondersteuning

Geen persoon het ‘n statutêre reg op die tipe onderhoud nie. Die taal in die Wet op Egskeiding is duidelik diskresionêr en ‘n ex-eggenoot wat opsoek is na ‘n toekenning vir onderhoud het geen reg as sodanig nie. Die Hof sal die volgende faktore in ag neem voordat die besluit geneem kan word vir onderhoud:

  1. Die bestaande of verwagte vermoëns van elkeen
  2. Die onderskeie verdienvermoëns van elkeen
  3. Hulle onderskeie behoeftes en verpligtinge
  4. Hul ouderdom
  5. Die tydperk van die huwelik
  6. Hul lewenstandaard voor die egskeiding
  7. Hul optrede, indien relevant, tot die verbrokkeling van die huwelik
  8. ‘n Bevel vir die verdeling van bates
  9. Enige ander faktor wat in die Hof se mening in ag geneem moet word.

Die diskresionêre bevoegdheid van die Hof om ‘n onderhoud toekenning te maak sluit ook in die krag om geen toekenning te maak. Ons reg gunstig die “skoon breek” beginsel, wat basies beteken dat na die egskeiding moet altwee partye so gou as moontlik ekonomies onafhanklik van mekaar af wees.

Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19

Na aanleiding van menigte sake wat eksklusief  met tussentydse onderhoud handel, het dit gebruiklik geword om nie onderhoud aan ‘n eggenoot wat in ‘n permanente verhouding is met ‘n ander persoon, toe te ken nie.

Soos hierbo genoem, het die Appèlhof ‘n interessante uitspraak gegee in die saak van Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones. Die vraag in hierdie saak was, onder andere, of dit teen die openbare beleid sou wees vir ‘n man om onderhoud aan sy ex-vrou te betaal terwyl sy saam met ‘n ander man bly.

Die partye, wat in Desember 1972 getrou het, het in Januarie 2011 geskei. In terme van die finale egskeidingsbevel, moes die Appellant (die gewese man) die Respondent (die gewese vrou) ‘n bedrag van R2 000.00 per maand betaal vir onderhoud van die begin van Februarie 2011 af. Met verlof van die Hooggeregshof, het die Appellant slegs ten opsigte van die onderhoudsbevel geappelleer na die Appèlhof.

Teen die tyd dat die finale egskeidingsbevel toegestaan is, het albei partye ander verhoudings aangeknoop. Die Respondent het saam met haar nuwe maat ingetrek en haar ten volle en onvoorwaardelik finansieel in stand gehou het.

In die uitsprake van Dodo v Dodo 1990 (2) SA 77 (W) op 89G; Carstens v Carstens 1985 (2) SA 351 (SE) op 353F; SP v HP 2009 (5) Sa 223 (0), is dit geargumenteer dat dit teen openbare beleid sou wees vir ‘n vrou om deur twee verskeie mans op dieselfde tyd ondersteun te word.

Die Hof was van mening dat terwyl daar geen twyfel was dat lede van die gemeenskap daardie uitkyk sal endosseer nie, verwys dit eerder na waardes van die verlede, en die Hof was van mening dat in die moderne, meer liberale era waarin ons leef, vereis openbare beleid dat ‘n persoon wat saam met ‘n ander maat lewe, nie vir daardie rede alleen verbied moet word om onderhoud te eis van sy of haar eggenoot nie.

In die lig van die feite van die huidige saak, waar die Respondent deur haar nuwe maat onderhou word en vir jare in ‘n permanente verhouding is met hom, het die Respondent versuim om te wys dat sy op onderhoud van haar ex-man geregtig is. Die Appèl het dus geslaag, en die onderhoudsbevel was tersyde gestel.

Daarom, as jy voel dat jy tans onderhoud betaal wat jy dink jou gewese man / vrou nie verdien nie, kontak jou regsverteenwoordiger en neem terug die geld wat aan jou behoort waarvoor jy so hard gewerk het!

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Rule 43 applications

Rule 43 applications

A2blDivorce proceedings can take years to come to conclusion and this leaves certain issues unresolved until such a time. A Rule 43 Application can be used to find a comparatively speedy interim solution to important issues such as maintenance and access to minor children.

If you are involved in an opposed divorce action you may wait years before getting your final divorce order. This means that your legal costs may end up sky high and your spouse may not be contributing to living costs of yourself or your children.

There may also be issues with regard to custody of minor children or access to minor children that will eventually be resolved at the completion of the divorce proceedings for which you need to make interim arrangements. This is particularly helpful where one parent is preventing the other from having access to the minor children born out of the relationship. Luckily there is a way of dealing with these issues while you are still engaged in divorce proceedings.

A Rule 43 Application allows you to claim for a contribution towards the costs of a pending matrimonial action, for maintenance pendente lite (awaiting litigation), for interim custody of any child and for interim access to any child. [1] In order to do this you need to deliver a sworn statement which sets out what you are claiming for as well as the grounds upon which you are relying. A notice must also be attached to this sworn statement which you’ll find in the Uniform Rules of Court. These documents will usually be drafted by your attorneys after having consulted with you. Remember that a sworn statement must be signed before a commissioner of oaths. Make sure to read through this document thoroughly to make sure that it is complete and accurate before you sign it.[2]

A Rule 43 Application must be served by the sheriff and the Respondent must deliver a sworn reply to the sworn statement within 10 court days of receiving it. If the Respondent does not reply then he shall be barred from doing so. If the Respondent does reply then the Registrar must as soon as possible thereafter bring the matter before the High Court for summary hearing on 10 days notice to the parties.[3]

The High Court may then make an order that it deems as just or it may dismiss the Application if they can see from the sworn statements that the claims have no proper grounds or for any other reason that they deem to be just and fair. The court also has the power to change its decision through the same procedure where there has been a material change in the circumstances of either party or the circumstances of a child takes place or where the contribution towards costs proves to be inadequate.[4]

If you are involved in opposed Divorce proceedings and are struggling with any of the abovementioned issues then consider mentioning your interest in making an Application to the High Court in terms of Rule 43 to your legal representation if this remedy hasn’t been brought to your attention yet. It is an effective remedy to getting relief in what can be a long and drawn out process and decreases the chances of one party being prejudiced where they do not have the finances to fund the legal costs of the divorce proceedings.

References

  • Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[1] Rule 43(1)(a) – (c) of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[2] Rule 43(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[3] Rule 43(3) & (4) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[4] Rule 43(5) & (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Reël 43 aansoeke

Reël 43 aansoeke

A2blEgskeiding sake kan jare neem om tot ‘n gevolgtrekking te kom en dit laat sekere kwessiesonopgelos tot so ‘n tyd. Reël 43 aansoeke kan gebruik word om ‘n relatiewe vinnige tussentydse oplossing vir belangrike kwessies soos onderhoud en toegang tot die minderjarige kinders te vind.

As jy in ‘n bestrede egskeiding aksie betrokke is kan jy jare wag voordat jy jou Finale Egskeidingsbevel gaan kry. Dit beteken dat jou regskostes hemelshoog kan wees en dat jou eggenoot dalk nie tot jou lewenskostes of die lewenskostes van jou kinders bydra nie. Daar kan ook probleme met betrekkeing tot die bewaring van, of toegang tot, die minderjarige kinders wees wat uiteindelik opgelos sal word teen die finaliseering van die egskeiding. Tussentydse reëlings moet gemaak word ten opsigte van die bogenoemde kwessies. Hierdie tussentydse reëlings is veral nuttig waar een ouer verhoed dat die ander toegang tot die minderjarige kinders wat uit die verhouding gebore is mag hê. Gelukkig is daar ‘n manier om hierdie probleme te hanteer terwyl jy nog met die egskeidings aksie besig is.

‘n Reël 43 aansoek kan gebruik word om vir ‘n bydra tot die regskostes van die egskeidings aksie te eis, vir onderhoud pendent lite (hangende litigasie), vir ‘n tussentydse bewaring van ‘n minderjarige kind en vir tussentydse toegang tot ‘n minderjarige kind.[1] Om hierdie te doen moet jy ‘n beëdigde verklaring opstel waarin jy die gronde waarop jy die aansoek bring uiteensit. ‘n Kennisgewing moet by die beëdigde verklaring aangeheg word. Hierdie dokumente sal gewoonlik deur jou prokureurs opgestel word nadat hulle met jou gekonsulteer het. Onthou dat ‘n beëdigde verklaring moet voor ‘n kommissaris van ede geteken word. Maak seker om deeglik deur hierdie dokument deur te lees om seker te maak dat dit volledig en akkuraat is voordat jy dit teken.[2]

‘n Reël 43 aansoek moet deur die balju beteken word en die respondent moet ‘n beëdigde antwoord binne 10 hof dae van ontvangs van die beëdigde verklaring gee. As die respondent nie antwoord nie dan sal hy onder belet om dit te doen geplaas word. As die respondent wel sy beëdigde antwoord gelewer het moet die Griffier so gou as moontlik die saak voor die Hoogeregshof bring vir summiere aanhoring op 10 dae kennisgewing aan die partye.[3]

Die hof mag dan ‘n bevel maak wat dit as billik ag, of dit kan die aansoek van die hand wysas die hof van die verklarings kan sien dat die eise nie behoorlike gronde het nie of vir enige ander rede wat dit as billik ag.Die hof het ook die mag om hul besluite te verander deur dieselfde prosedures waar daar ‘n wesenlike verandering in die omstandighede van een van die partye was of in die omstandighede van ‘n minderjarige kind is of waar die bydra tot regskostes onvoldoende is.[4]

As jy in ‘n bestrede edskeiding betrokke is en sukkel met een van die bogenoemde probleme dan moet jy dit oorweeg om jou regsverteenvoordiger oor die Reël 43 aansoek te vra as hul jou nog nie oor hierdie remedie ingelig het nie. Dit is ‘n effektiewe remedie om verligting te kry in wat ‘n lang en uitgetreke proses kan wees en verminder die kanse dat een party benadeel is waar hulle nie die finansies het om die regskostes van die egskeiding te betaal nie.

Verwysings

  • Reël 43 van die “Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa”

[1] Rule 43(1)(a) – (c) of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[2] Rule 43(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[3] Rule 43(3) & (4) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[4] Rule 43(5) & (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

The New South African Immigration Regulations tightens screws for foreign spouses.

The New South African Immigration Regulations tightens screws for foreign spouses.

A3blThis article looks at the New South African Immigration Regulations that came into effect on 26 May 2014 and how it affects a spouse attempting to renew or obtain a spousal visa.

A Newlands family was torn apart after South Africa’s new regulations barred Louise Johnson from returning to South Africa after going on a family holiday in Namibia. Section 27 of the new regulations declared Louise Johnson, a Danish-born spouse of a South African, as an undesirable person.

People who are travelling on an expired visa will be declared as undesirable people. This is very controversial because many foreigners, such as Louise, have applied well within the time limit, which is 60 days before the expiry thereof, and have still not received their renewed visa.

In order to apply for a spousal and life partner visa one must prove that the relationship has existed for two years before an application for this visa is made. One must also prove that the relationship still exists after two years. Further, if you are married to or in a life partnership with a South African citizen or a permanent resident holder, you have to be married for a continuous period of five years before an application for permanent residency can be launched.

Visa renewals often take months to process and in the past a receipt issued by the Department of Home Affairs, indicating that an application was pending would suffice. The new regulations bring this to an end. Foreigners who remain in South Africa for anywhere between one to thirty days after the expiry date of their valid visa will be deemed to be undesirable for a period of twelve months. A second transgression within a period of twenty-four months will render them “undesirable” for a period of two years and should they overstay for more than thirty days they will be classified as “undesirable” for five years.

For example Olivia Lock, a British National, who is married to a South African, was prohibited from returning to South Africa for 12 months in May, due to leaving South Africa on an expired visa whilst awaiting the outcome of a renewal of her visa. United States citizen, Shaima Herman, married to a South African, was also declared an “undesirable person”, after a two-year wait for the approval of her spousal visa. Her husband indicated that she had visited the Department of Home Affairs on 14 separate occasions and yet her visa remains delayed.

Haniff Hoosen from the Democratic Alliance stated that: “Media reports and public outcry suggest that in less than a month the new regulations have already ripped apart families, dissuaded investors, and led to the suspension and even cancellation of multimillion-rand film and tourism ventures”. He called for the regulations to be reviewed and debated by Parliament’s Home Affairs Portfolio Committee.

The Minister of Home Affairs, Malusi Gigaba, asserted that the new immigration regulations proposing to be in the best interests of South Africa’s security, is an insufficient excuse for inefficient policy. He further states that: “Omissions and lack of definitions and criteria raised serious concerns about the new regulations, which would be subject to “misappropriation and abuse” by the Department of Home Affairs and its officials.”

It is very likely that one can expect to see court cases challenging these regulations very soon but in the meantime one should not travel out of South Africa without a valid visa, or you will be declared an “undesirable person”.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Die Nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse Immigrasie Regulasies draai skroewe vas vir buitelandse eggenote.

Die Nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse Immigrasie Regulasies draai skroewe vas vir buitelandse eggenote.

A3blHierdie artikel kyk na die nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse Immigrasie Regulasies wat op 26 Mei 2014 in werking getree het wat eggenote affekteer wat probeer om hul visum te hernu of ‘n visum te kry.

‘n Familie in Kaapstad is uitmekaar geskeur nadat die nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse regulasies Louise Johnson verbied het om terug na Suid-Afrika te keer, nadat die familie met vakansie was in Namibië. Artikel 27 van die nuwe regulasies verklaar Louise Johnson, ‘n Deense-gebore eggenote van ‘n Siud Afrikaanse burger, as ‘n “ongewenste persoon”.

Mense wat uit die land uit reis met ‘n vervalde visum sal as ongewenste persone verklaar word. Dit is betwisbaar omdat baie buitelanders, soos Louise, aansoek gedoen het vir ‘n nuwe visum binne die voorgeskrewe tydperk, wat 60 dae voor die verstryking daarvan is, en dan nie hulle hernieude visum ontvang het nie, en dan verban is om terug te kom.

Om aansoek te doen vir ‘n huwelik- of lewensmaatvisum moet mens bewys dat die verhouding vir ten minste al twee jaar bestaan ​​voordat die aansoek gebring word. ‘n Mens moet ook bewys dat die verhouding nog steeds bestaan na twee jaar. Verder, as jy getroud is of in ‘n lewens vennootskap met ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse burger of permanente inwoner permit houer is, moet jy getroud wees vir ‘n aaneenlopende tydperk van vyf jaar voordat ‘n aansoek vir permanente verblyf gebring kan word.

Visa hernuwings vat dikwels maande om te verwerk en in die verlede was ‘n kwitansie wat uitgereik was deur die Departement van Binnelandse Sake, wat aandui dat ‘n aansoek hangende is, voldoende. Die nuwe regulasies bring dit tot ‘n einde. Buitelanders wat in Suid-Afrika bly vir enigiets tussen een tot dertig dae na die verstryking van hul geldige visum sal beskou word as “ongewenst” vir ‘n tydperk van twaalf maande. ‘n Tweede oortreding binne ‘n tydperk van vier-en-twintig maande sal hulle as “ongewenst” verklaar vir ‘n tydperk van twee jaar en as hulle vir meer as dertig dae onwettiglik bly sal hulle as “ongewenst” geklassifiseer word vir vyf jaar.

Byvoorbeeld Olivia Lock, ‘n Britse burger, wat getroud is met ‘n Suid-Afrikaner, was verbied om terug te keer na Suid-Afrika vir 12 maande, vanaf Mei. Dit is omdat sy Suid-Afrika verlaat op ‘n vervalde visum terwyl sy gewag het vir die resultaat van haar aansoek vir die hernuwing van haar visum.  Amerikaanse burger, Shaima Herman, wat getroud is met ‘n Suid-Afrikaner, is ook verklaar as ‘n “ongewenste persoon”, nadat sy al vir twee jaar vir die goedkeuring van haar huweliksvisum wag. Haar man het aangedui dat sy op meer as veertien verskillende geleenthede die Departement van Binnelandse Sake besoek het en steeds bly haar visum uitstaande.

Haniff Hoosen van die Demokratiese Alliansie het gesê dat: “Media verslae en openbare protes dui daarop dat die nuwe regulasies in minder as ‘n maand reeds families uitmekaar geruk het, beleggers ontraai het, en gelei het tot die staking en selfs kansellasie van multimiljoene rande se film- en toerisme ondernemings”. Hy het aangevra dat die regulasies hersien word en dat die probleme met die regulasies bespreek moet word deur die Binnelandse Sake Portefeuljekomitee van die Parlement.

Die Minister van Binnelandse Sake, Malusi Gigaba, beweer dat die nuwe immigrasie-regulasies, wat bely om in die beste belang van Suid-Afrika se sekuriteit te wees, ‘n onvoldoende verskoning vir ‘n ondoeltreffende staatsbeleid is. Hy sê verder dat: “Die onvolledigheid van die beleid so wel as die onvolkome definisies, ‘n ernstige bekommernis in verband met die nuwe regulasies is, wat ook onderhewig is aan ‘onwettige toe-eiening en misbruik’ deur die Departement van Binnelandse Sake en sy amptenare.”

Dit is heel waarskynlik dat daar binnekort hofsake gaan wees wat die nuwe regulasie onder die verspuur gaan bring, maar in die tussentyd moet ‘n mens nie uit Suid-Afrika reis sonder ‘n geldige visum nie, anders sál jy as ‘n “ongewenste persoon” verklaar word.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.