Asian Immigration FSAL

Question 1

R v Padsha

Decisions and Importance

Answer 1

• Majority: no coloured person may enter the Union if their economic position and habits of life were unsuited to life in the Union
• Minority: The Minister discriminated on ground of race and thus legislation was ultra vires.
• Crucial case in determining what “Asian” meant.
• Up until this point, Asians and whites were on relatively equal footing, but it went downhill from here

Question 2

R v Padsha Facts

Answer 2

This sickening case dealt with the 1913 Immigration Act which stated that: “Any class of person deemed by the Minister on economic grounds or on standards of habits of life to be unsuited to the requirements of the Union or any particular province thereof shall be a prohibited immigrant.” The Minister in this case had decided that all Asiatic people were not economically suited to life in the Union.
The defence argued that it was ultra vires the Minister to declare all Asiatics as one class or race because they clearly were not. Furthermore, they argued that the legislation itself was ultra vires. The court, however, was split 3 – 2 in favour of the Minister.

Question 3

Shidiack v Minister of the Interior 1912 AD 642

Answer 3

Shidiack was a Syrian man who wanted his young sons to join him in South Africa. The Immigration Act of 1906 was still in force and required everyone wanting to enter the Union to fill out a form in a European language to the satisfaction of the Minister. Shidiack’s children, upon reaching East London could not speak or write in a European language. The forms never reached the Minister but were rejected by the Port official and hence, the forms were not properly satisfied. Shidiack brought the case to the court who ruled that if the Minister had not acted, then he could not have been satisfied. The children took the test again, yet the Minister was not satisfied that they could speak a European language and they were denied entrance into the Union.

Although tragic for Shidiack, the case was one of the most important for early Administrative Law in the Union. The laws (and the procedures thereof) must be followed regardless of the outcome of the case.

Question 4

Dadoo

Answer 4

The law stated that no Asiatic person could own or occupy land in the Traansvaal. Dadoo, however, evaded this law by acquiring and owning Traansvaal land through a business. He owned 149 out of 150 shares in a company that was set up to buy and sell land. The question before the court was whether or not race could be classified as a legitimate limitation on business.

The respondents believed that Dadoo was in fraud of the law yet the AD held that individuals are entitled to evade the law in this manner. This decision was important because it saw the judiciary interpreting the law in its letter, not on its spirit. Unlike the Moller case where the court interpreted the law widely to discriminate on race, the majority of this court interpreted the law narrowly so as to protect the rights of the individual