Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Freedom Under Law v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT 48/17) [2021] ZACC 5; 2021 (6) BCLR 575 (CC) (1 April 2021)
The Constitutional Court compelled further document production and updated audit verification in the social grants dispute, reserving the profit-determination issue.
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 auth…
Source excerpt
South African Social Security Agency and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT48/17) [2018] ZACC 26; 2018 (10) BCLR 1291 (CC) (30 August 2018)
The Court found that although SASSA's urgency was self-created and its explanation for the delay was inadequate, the interests of approximately 2.8 million vulnerable grant recipients outweighed the factors against granting a further extension. The principle of justice and equity required the Court to prevent serious prejudice to those dependent on social grants, even at the expense of finality in litigation. The Court held that neither the Minister nor the CEO had acted in bad faith or with gross negligence sufficient to warrant personal costs orders. However, SASSA and its CEO in her offici…
Source excerpt
Lion of Africa Life Assurance Company Ltd v South African Social Security Agency and Another (97973/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 550 (15 March 2016)
The High Court granted interim relief suspending a moratorium on funeral policy deductions from children’s grants, pending review, and found the matter urgent.
Modibedi v The Road Accident Fund (45626/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 767 (18 November 2015)
The court held that a disability grant is not income for the purpose of calculating a loss of support claim. The grant is provided to individuals who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disability and is not intended as a replacement for income or as a means to support dependants. Upon the death of the beneficiary, the disability grant lapses and cannot be considered as ongoing income for the purpose of a loss of support claim. The court relied on the Social Assistance Act and its regulations, as well as the Constitutional Court's decision in Coughlan N.O v Road Acciden…
Source excerpt
Coughlan N.O. v Road Accident Fund (CCT160/14) [2015] ZACC 9; 2015 (4) SA 1 (CC); 2015 (6) BCLR 676 (CC) (20 April 2015)
The Constitutional Court held that foster child grants are not deductible from compensation for loss of support payable to foster children under the Road Accident Fund Act. The grants are paid to foster parents as part of the state's constitutional obligation to provide social assistance to children in need of care, regardless of the cause of need. The nature and purpose of foster child grants differ fundamentally from compensation for loss of support, which is intended to replace the material support lost due to the death of a breadwinner. Foster child grants are not predicated on the death…
Source excerpt
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (No 2) [2014] ZACC 12; 2014 (6) BCLR 641 (CC); 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) (17 April 2014)
The Constitutional Court held that the contract for the payment of social grants between SASSA and Cash Paymaster Services was invalidly awarded and must be set aside. However, to avoid disruption to beneficiaries, the declaration of invalidity is suspended pending the outcome of a new tender process. SASSA is ordered to initiate a new tender within 30 days, with the new contract to run for five years and adequate safeguards to protect beneficiaries and their data. New independent bid committees must be appointed, and quarterly reports filed with the Court. If no new tender is awarded, the su…
Source excerpt
Winvoel and Others v MEC for Social Development, Northern Cape and Others (1014/09) [2011] ZANCHC 31 (21 October 2011)
The court found that the applicants made proper applications for drought relief grants on 15 May 2004, which were not considered or decided upon by the respondents. The evidence of the applicants, supported by independent witnesses, was preferred over the contradictory and hearsay evidence of the respondents. The delay in bringing the application was excusable due to the applicants’ lack of sophistication and the logistical difficulties of organizing a class action among indigent persons. The court held that the failure to take a decision is reviewable under PAJA and that the 180-day period s…
Source excerpt
MEC for Social Development v Mdodisa (578/09) [2010] ZASCA 115; 2010 (6) SA 415 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 150 (SCA) (22 September 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that termination of the respondent’s disability grant was procedurally unfair and dismissed the MEC’s appeal with costs.
Tshabile and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Another (1605/2007, 2389/2007, 227/2008) [2009] ZANWHC 8 (5 March 2009)
The court found that SASSA failed to provide written notification to the applicants regarding the outcome of their social grant applications, despite repeated enquiries and the statutory obligation to do so. The respondents' opposition was unsupported by objective evidence, as no documents evidencing notification were attached. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of bona fide explanation and absence of supporting affidavits. The applicants established a proper case for relief, having waited over three years without resolution. The court condoned any procedural non-complia…
Source excerpt
Explore more
