When the decision does not come: a guide to delayed applications

For many applicants, the hardest part of a South African immigration application is not the preparation. It is the wait. Months pass with no outcome, the tracking page shows the same status, and the existing visa moves closer to its expiry date. The temptation is either to do nothing or to panic. Neither helps. A delayed application is a problem with a sequence of answers, and the order in which they are used matters. This commentary sets out that sequence, from protecting your status to asking a court to compel a decision.

Step one: know what "delayed" means

A delay is measured against something. Since 27 June 2026 that benchmark is Immigration Circular 8 of 2026, which sets the Department of Home Affairs' target turnaround times for applications lodged in South Africa between 1 April 2026 and 31 March 2027.¹ Among them:

Two qualifications matter. The targets apply only to complete applications lodged in South Africa, and they are operational benchmarks rather than legal deadlines. They are nonetheless the clearest evidence of what the Department itself regards as a reasonable time, and that is useful later.

Step two: protect your status first

Before chasing the decision, make sure you are lawfully in the country while you wait. Immigration Directive 7 of 2026 extends the status of people whose waiver, long-term visa or appeal applications were pending when it was signed on 30 March 2026, until 30 June 2027. It also allows them to travel and return without being declared undesirable, provided they were lawfully admitted, applied through VFS Global and hold a receipt that can be verified.²

The directive has important limits. It does not appear to cover applications lodged after 30 March 2026. It excludes permanent residence applicants, who must keep a valid temporary visa throughout. And its protection ends as soon as the outcome is received.³ The consequences of getting this wrong are serious: an overstay of 30 days or less can lead to a twelve-month ban, a second such overstay within 24 months to a two-year ban, and an overstay of more than 30 days to a five-year ban.⁴

Protect the status before you pursue the decision. A late outcome can be fixed. An overstay is much harder to undo.

Step three: track and build a record

Track the application on the VFS Global portal using the reference number, and log a query with the Department's contact centre.⁵ Keep a printout of each check and every reference number you are given.Then write. A short, polite letter to the Department, identifying the application, the date of lodging, the applicable Circular 8 target and the prejudice caused by the delay, does two things: it sometimes produces a decision, and it creates the record that a court will later want to see.

If administrative channels fail, the Public Protector can investigate slow service by government departments. It will not investigate court decisions, generally will not take up a matter already in litigation, and expects the complainant to have tried the department first.⁶

Step four: understand the legal duty to decide

Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act gives that guarantee teeth in the case of delay. Section 6(2)(g) makes a failure to take a decision reviewable. Section 6(3)(a) applies where there is a duty to decide but no law sets a time limit: the applicant may go to court on the ground that there has been unreasonable delay. Where a law does prescribe a period, section 6(3)(b) applies once that period has expired.⁷

A common misunderstanding is that PAJA sets a general 90-day deadline for decisions. It does not. The 90-day periods in section 5 relate to requests for reasons after a decision has been made. In a case of pure delay, the question is whether the delay has become unreasonable in all the circumstances. That is where the Circular 8 targets, the history of correspondence and the prejudice to the applicant become evidence.

Internal remedies also need attention. Section 7(2) of PAJA generally requires internal remedies to be exhausted before review, but where no decision has been made there is nothing to appeal. A delayed appeal is different: sections 8(5) and 8(7) of the Immigration Act set no time limit for deciding appeals, so a stalled appeal can be challenged as unreasonable delay under section 6(3)(a).⁸

Step five: what the courts will do

The High Court has shown that it will intervene. In Mushore v Minister of Home Affairs [2022] ZAWCHC 186, a delay of about six years in deciding a critical skills appeal was held to be unreasonable; the eventual refusal was set aside and the matter sent back for reconsideration within 30 days.⁹ In Savvas v Minister of Home Affairs [2024] ZAGPPHC 321, the Director-General's refusal to consider a spousal visa appeal was described as regrettable and unlawful, and a decision was ordered within 14 working days.¹⁰ In Mlambo v Minister of Home Affairs [2024] ZAGPPHC 1111, where a decision on a proof of permanent residence application had never been communicated, the court ordered the outcome and reasons to be provided within five days.¹¹

In exceptional circumstances, for example where there is nothing left for the Department to reconsider, the court may go further and substitute its own decision. In Ling v Director-General: Home Affairs [2022] ZAWCHC 177, the court ordered permanent residence permits to be issued within 20 working days.¹² And where the Department ignores an order, contempt is available: in 2026 the Department was held in contempt for failing to comply with an order on citizenship.¹³

Two cautions. Costs orders vary: sometimes they are made against the Department, sometimes each party pays its own. And the choice of court matters. In Fontana v Director-General: Home Affairs [2026] ZAWCHC 578, an application in the Western Cape High Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the decision was taken in Pretoria and its effect was felt abroad, even though the Department conceded it was wrong on the merits.¹⁴ Where the decision was taken in Pretoria and the applicant lives abroad, the Gauteng Division in Pretoria is the safer forum.

The sequence in practice

• Check that the application was complete. The Circular 8 targets do not apply to incomplete applications.
• Secure your status. Confirm whether Directive 7 applies. Permanent residence applicants should renew their temporary visa in time.
• Keep every record. The VFS receipt, tracking printouts, contact centre references and a full copy of the application.
• Escalate in writing once the target has passed. Then send a formal letter of demand citing section 33, PAJA and the Circular 8 target.
• Consider court before protection lapses. Ask for an order compelling a decision within a fixed period and, where justified, interim protection from arrest or an undesirability finding.
• Appeal promptly if refused. Appeals under section 8 must be lodged within 10 working days.

Conclusion

Delay is not a decision, but it can do as much damage as one. The law offers a clear route: protect status, build a record, escalate in writing and, where necessary, ask the court to compel the Department to do what the Constitution requires. The courts have repeatedly shown that they will act. The applicants who fare best are not those who litigate first, but those who prepare early, keep their status secure and arrive at court, if they must, with a complete and well-documented case.