Petersen and Others v SASSA (1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023) [2024] ZASCA 173; 2025 (3) SA 153 (SCA) (12 December 2024)

Petersen and Others v SASSA (1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023) [2024] ZASCA 173; 2025 (3) SA 153 (SCA) (12 December 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SASSA's decision to procure and pay for close protection services for officials of the Department of Social Development and their children was ultra vires the SASSA Act and therefore unlawful. The delay in bringing the review was explained by the sequence of events following the Auditor General's findings and subsequent attempts to recover the expenditure, and was condoned as the interests of justice required the matter to be heard. The claim for repayment was not extinguished by prescription, as the relief sought was a public law remedy and not a debt under the Prescription Act. The Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act did not apply to the...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 173
Parties
Appellant: Virginia Petersen; Appellant: Bathabile Olive Dlamini; Appellant: Lumka Oliphant; Respondent: South African Social Security Agency
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Case Number
1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal of Dr Petersen and Ms Oliphant upheld in part and dismissed in part; appeal of Ms Dlamini dismissed.
Judges
Makgoka, Mbatha, Weiner, Kgoele, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Self Review, Legality Review, Undue Delay, Prescription Act, Just and Equitable Relief, Ultra Vires
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Self Review Legality Review Undue Delay Prescription Act Just and Equitable Relief Ultra Vires

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Virginia Petersen

Appellant

Bathabile Olive Dlamini

Appellant

Lumka Oliphant

Appellant

South African Social Security Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SASSA's decision to procure close protection services for officials and their families was lawful under the SASSA Act.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the self-review application by SASSA should be condoned.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for repayment by SASSA was extinguished by prescription under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SASSA's decision to procure and pay for close protection services for officials of the Department of Social Development and their children was ultra vires the SASSA Act and therefore unlawful. The delay in bringing the review was explained by the sequence of events following the Auditor General's findings and subsequent attempts to recover the expenditure, and was condoned as the interests of justice required the matter to be heard. The claim for repayment was not extinguished by prescription, as the relief sought was a public law remedy and not a debt under the Prescription Act. The Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act did not apply to the...

Court Disposition

Appeal of Dr Petersen and Ms Oliphant upheld in part and dismissed in part; appeal of Ms Dlamini dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals of the first appellant and the third appellant are upheld in part and dismissed in part.
  • No order as to costs for the appeals of the first and third appellants.