Mphalala v South African Security Agency (684/2011) [2014] ZAECMHC 27 (5 June 2014)

Mphalala v South African Security Agency (684/2011) [2014] ZAECMHC 27 (5 June 2014)

The applicant's disability grant was approved for a limited period of 12 months, as evidenced by the respondent's letter dated 25 August 2008. The applicant was informed of the temporary nature of the grant, and its termination occurred by effluxion of time, not by unilateral or unlawful action. The applicant and her attorneys were made aware of the approval letter prior to launching the application. There was no procedural unfairness or violation of the applicant's constitutional right to social security, as the respondent acted within the bounds of the Social Assistance Act and the Constitution. The application was therefore without merit and should not have been brought. Regarding...

Citation
[2014] ZAECMHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Nomvu Mphalala; Respondent: South African Social Security Agency
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2014
Case Number
684/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
L.P Pakade
Legal Topics
Social Assistance, Disability Grant Termination, Constitutional Right to Social Security, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Social Assistance Disability Grant Termination Constitutional Right to Social Security Procedural Fairness Costs in Constitutional Litigation

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomvu Mphalala

Applicant

South African Social Security Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unilateral termination of the applicant's disability grant was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement of the grant and arrear payments.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to social security was infringed.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's disability grant was approved for a limited period of 12 months, as evidenced by the respondent's letter dated 25 August 2008. The applicant was informed of the temporary nature of the grant, and its termination occurred by effluxion of time, not by unilateral or unlawful action. The applicant and her attorneys were made aware of the approval letter prior to launching the application. There was no procedural unfairness or violation of the applicant's constitutional right to social security, as the respondent acted within the bounds of the Social Assistance Act and the Constitution. The application was therefore without merit and should not have been brought. Regarding...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs.