South Africa Case Law

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC 29; [2025] 2 All SA 230 (GP); 2025 (4) SA 249 (GP) (23 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

071891/2023

Judge

Twala M L

The court found that the SRD grant regulations and procedures unlawfully and unconstitutionally excluded eligible applicants from accessing social assistance, violating section 27 of the Constitution. The online-only application process constituted an unreasonable barrier for poor and vulnerable persons, lacking justification for differentiation from other grants. The definitions of 'income' and 'financial support' were interpreted too broadly, resulting in unjust exclusions. Both the bank and database verification processes were unreliable, lacked conflict resolution mechanisms, and operated…

Source excerpt

• Social Assistance
• Progressive Realisation
• Regulatory Invalidity
• Income Thresholds
• Procedural Fairness
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Botiyana v Minister of Social Development (1679/14)

Botiyana v Minister of Social Development (1679/14) [2015] ZAECMHC 52 (23 April 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1679/14

Judge

LP Pakade

The High Court reviewed and set aside a disability-grant appeal decision, finding the tribunal failed to follow mandatory medical-assessment procedures.

• Social Assistance
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Internal Appeal Procedure
• Disability Grant
• Judicial Review
• Disability-grant

Mphalala v South African Security Agency (684/2011)

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

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

684/2011

Judge

L.P Pakade

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 Constitu…

Source excerpt

• Social Assistance
• Disability Grant Termination
• Constitutional Right To Social Security
• Procedural Fairness
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Geledwana v Minister of Social Development and Others (1678/12)

Geledwana v Minister of Social Development and Others (1678/12) [2013] ZAECMHC 24 (26 September 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1678/12

Judge

Z.M. Nhlangulela

The court found that the appeal tribunal committed a misdirection by relying on the unverified findings of Dr Funyufunyu and disregarding the detailed medical examination by Dr Mankanku, which supported the applicant's eligibility for a permanent disability grant. Regulation 18 required the tribunal to refer the applicant for a second independent medical examination when faced with conflicting medical reports, which was not done. The applicant's right to just administrative action under PAJA was breached. The court also held that the applicant's delay in bringing the review application was ju…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Social Assistance
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Medical Assessment
• Review Of Administrative Action

Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (CCT 69/12)

Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (CCT 69/12) [2012] ZACC 25; 2013 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 620 (CC) (9 October 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 69/12

Judges

Khampepe, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob, Zondo

Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court, properly interpreted, does not prohibit the introduction of evidence by an amicus curiae in the High Court. The Rule grants courts broad discretion to admit amici and to set the terms and conditions of their participation, including the reception of evidence if it serves the interests of justice. The High Court's narrow interpretation, which excluded the possibility of amici adducing evidence, is incorrect and inconsistent with both the text and purpose of Rule 16A. The role of amici curiae in constitutional litigation is to assist courts by providing r…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• High Court Inherent Powers
• Children's Act
• Social Assistance
• Public Interest Litigation

SS v Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court: District of Krugersdorp and Others (14/1/4-206/10, A3056/11)

SS v Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court: District of Krugersdorp and Others (14/1/4-206/10, A3056/11) [2012] ZAGPJHC 149; 2012 (6) SA 45 (GSJ) (29 August 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14/1/4-206/10, A3056/11

Judges

Saldulker, MVR Potgieter

The court held that the Children’s Court erred in its interpretation of s150(1)(a) of the Children’s Act by focusing on the means of the caregiver rather than the child. The correct approach is a two-stage inquiry: first, whether the child is orphaned or abandoned; second, whether the child is without any visible means of support, which refers to the child’s own financial resources and not those of the caregiver. The Lamanis, as the child’s aunt and uncle, have no legal duty of support and thus qualify as foster parents. The minor child, SS, is an orphan without visible means of support and i…

Source excerpt

• Foster Care
• Children In Need Of Care
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Social Assistance
• Best Interests Of Child

Titisi and Others v Chief Executive Officer of SASSA (2121/10)

Titisi and Others v Chief Executive Officer of SASSA (2121/10) [2011] ZANWHC 3 (31 January 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2121/10

Judge

A A Landman

A High Court review involving multiple SASSA applicants was split by procedural status: some dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies, some struck off, and others granted relief.

• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Premature Enrolment
• Social Assistance
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Administrative-law
• Exhaustion-of-internal-remedies

Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (20067/2010)

Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (20067/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 268 (25 June 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20067/2010

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the subsidisation agreements between SASSA and certain banks were concluded without any proper procurement process as required by section 217 of the Constitution and relevant statutes. The arrangements were based on informal verbal agreements, lacking transparency, competitiveness, and fairness. The evidence presented by the respondents was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with procurement requirements, and SASSA's own Evaluation Committee condemned the process. The principle of legality was contravened, as public power was exercised beyond what was conferred by law…

Source excerpt

• Procurement Process
• Principle Of Legality
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Finance Management Act
• Social Assistance
• Judicial Review

Joni v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape (451/2007)

Joni v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape (451/2007) [2009] ZAECMHC 27 (19 November 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

451/2007

Judge

X M Petse

The court set aside the termination of a disability grant, holding the applicant had not been properly told it was temporary or given a fair chance to appeal.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Social Assistance
• Legitimate Expectation
• Condonation Of Delay
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Administrative-law

Senatle v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency (1471/08)

Senatle v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency (1471/08) [2009] ZANWHC 11 (30 April 2009)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1471/08

Judge

J.H.F. Pistor

The court held that SASSA failed to comply with its statutory duty to properly inform the applicant of the outcome and reasons for refusal of his disability grant application. The mere sending of a notice by ordinary post does not satisfy the requirement to 'inform' as required by the relevant regulations, which demand actual receipt and understanding by the applicant. The court found that SASSA did not provide adequate notification or reasons within the prescribed time frames, and the applicant was entitled to approach the court for relief. However, since the applicant was eventually informe…

Source excerpt

• Social Assistance
• Statutory Interpretation
• Notification Requirements
• Condonation Of Delay
• Costs Award