Jikeka v South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) [2010] ZAECMHC 26; 2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM) (23 September 2010)

Jikeka v South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) [2010] ZAECMHC 26; 2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM) (23 September 2010)

The court held that section 5(2) of PAJA creates a statutory bar to instituting proceedings to compel written reasons before the expiry of the 90-day period, unless the period is reduced by agreement or by court order upon application. The applicant gave the respondent only 30 days to respond and launched the application before the 90 days had expired, without seeking a reduction of the period or condonation. The court found that the application was therefore prematurely launched and could not be entertained. The judge declined to follow contrary decisions in the division and held that the legislature intended the 90-day period to be observed unless reduced in accordance with section 9 of...

Citation
[2010] ZAECMHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Nokhwezi Cynthia Jikeka; Respondent: South African Social Security Agency (SASSA)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Case Number
2340/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed as prematurely launched; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Dawood
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Social Assistance Act, Premature Application, Adequate Written Reasons
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Social Assistance Act Premature Application Adequate Written Reasons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nokhwezi Cynthia Jikeka

Applicant

South African Social Security Agency (SASSA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's failure to provide written reasons for rejecting the applicant's disability grant application was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to launch proceedings before the expiry of the 90-day period prescribed by PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the application was prematurely launched in terms of section 5(2) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 5(2) of PAJA creates a statutory bar to instituting proceedings to compel written reasons before the expiry of the 90-day period, unless the period is reduced by agreement or by court order upon application. The applicant gave the respondent only 30 days to respond and launched the application before the 90 days had expired, without seeking a reduction of the period or condonation. The court found that the application was therefore prematurely launched and could not be entertained. The judge declined to follow contrary decisions in the division and held that the legislature intended the 90-day period to be observed unless reduced in accordance with section 9 of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as prematurely launched; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay their own costs.