In Part A the Applicant seeks in substance that first, second and third Respondents be interdicted from refusing to administer emergency healthcare to her whilst in Part B the Applicant seeks an order declaring that fifth and sixth Respondents policy of refusing placement of a asylum seekers and or refugees into the chronic renal treatment programme, kidney analysis, kidney and renal transplant to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights in the constitution.
The case concerns the validity of a decision to reject an asylum application pursuant to the Immigration Act section 28 subsection 4. The provision applies to asylum seekers who need protection because of their acts in Norway, and implies that such applicants may not be recognised as refugees if the main purpose of their acts has been to obtain a residence permit. For the Supreme Court, the question is whether this exemption is consistent with the Refugee Convention of 28 July 1951 Article 1 A.