Zalisa and Others v South African Social Security Agency and Others (82073/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 4 (29 January 2019)

Zalisa and Others v South African Social Security Agency and Others (82073/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 4 (29 January 2019)

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to final interdictory or declaratory relief. While the urgency and vulnerability of social grant beneficiaries were acknowledged, the statutory system for payment of grants, including the requirement for in-person consent via Annexure C forms, was properly authorized and implemented for rational reasons. The applicants did not follow the prescribed administrative review process under PAJA and could not rely on the principle of legality as an alternative. The court found no illegality or grounds to override the statutory authority's discretion. Accordingly, the interim order previously granted lapsed, and the application...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Nohdumiso Zalisa; Applicant: Thabo Joseph Skhosana; Applicant: Mateboho Winnie Penn; Applicant: Bonakele Petrus Maxongo; Applicant: Gladness Zodwa Cele; Applicant: Dwana Ndimende; Applicant: Mkhujulwa Errick Zuma; Applicant: Ntombisodwa Hapiness Mnganga; Applicant: Keabetswe Tilly Ratsatsi; Applicant: Pertunia Mokgadi Hamese; Applicant: Peter Essau Ntetedi Mabatle; Applicant: Mamisolo Martha Nkabi; Applicant: Gladys Sylvia Buthelezi; Applicant: Mbalenhle Rose Jiyane; Applicant: Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Social Security Agency; Respondent: Acting Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency; Respondent: Minister of Social Development; Respondent: South African Post Office SOC Limited; Respondent: Grindrod Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Case Number
82073/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment Following Interim Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim order lapses; no costs order made.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Social Grants, Regulation 21 Compliance, Urgent Interdict, Biometric Consent, Administrative Action Review, Contractual Autonomy
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Family and Children Social Grants Regulation 21 Compliance Urgent Interdict Biometric Consent Administrative Action Review +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nohdumiso Zalisa

Applicant

Thabo Joseph Skhosana

Applicant

Mateboho Winnie Penn

Applicant

Bonakele Petrus Maxongo

Applicant

Gladness Zodwa Cele

Applicant

Dwana Ndimende

Applicant

Mkhujulwa Errick Zuma

Applicant

Ntombisodwa Hapiness Mnganga

Applicant

Keabetswe Tilly Ratsatsi

Applicant

Pertunia Mokgadi Hamese

Applicant

Peter Essau Ntetedi Mabatle

Applicant

Mamisolo Martha Nkabi

Applicant

Gladys Sylvia Buthelezi

Applicant

Mbalenhle Rose Jiyane

Applicant

Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Social Security Agency

Respondent

Acting Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency

Respondent

Minister of Social Development

Respondent

South African Post Office SOC Limited

Respondent

Grindrod Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment Following Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether beneficiaries who provided biometric consent for payment of social grants into private bank accounts satisfied the requirements of Regulation 21(1).
  2. 2 Whether SASSA and the Minister were entitled to require new consent via Annexure C forms for continued payment into private accounts.
  3. 3 Whether SASSA's refusal to process Annexure C forms within a reasonable time was unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to final interdictory or declaratory relief. While the urgency and vulnerability of social grant beneficiaries were acknowledged, the statutory system for payment of grants, including the requirement for in-person consent via Annexure C forms, was properly authorized and implemented for rational reasons. The applicants did not follow the prescribed administrative review process under PAJA and could not rely on the principle of legality as an alternative. The court found no illegality or grounds to override the statutory authority's discretion. Accordingly, the interim order previously granted lapsed, and the application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim order lapses; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The interim order of 28 November 2018 lapses from date hereof.