Judicial Precedent

South African Social Security Agency and another v Minister of Social Development and others

Citation[2018] ZACC 26; Case CCT 48/17

JurisdictionZA

Area of Law

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawPublic ProcurementSocial Security LawRemedies and Constitutional Litigation

Facts of the Case

SASSA concluded a five-year contract with Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) for the payment of social grants. This contract was declared invalid by the Constitutional Court in the AllPay litigation, but the declaration of invalidity was suspended to avoid disruption in the payment of social grants. Despite repeated extensions and extensive supervisory orders by the Court, SASSA failed to put in place an alternative lawful payment system or a contingency plan. As the extended suspension was due to expire on 31 March 2018, SASSA and its CEO urgently approached the Constitutional Court seeking a further six-month extension of the suspension, limited to cash payments, citing an ongoing tender process. Evidence before the Court showed persistent delays, non-compliance with prior court orders, lack of candour, and self-created urgency on the part of SASSA and responsible officials.

Judicial Outcome

The declaration of invalidity of the SASSA–CPS contract, insofar as it related to cash payments, was suspended for a further six months from 1 April 2018. SASSA and CPS were ordered to ensure uninterrupted payment of social grants on the same terms as the existing contract, subject to strict oversight, reporting obligations, audits, data-protection safeguards, and monitoring by a Panel of Experts. The Minister and SASSA were required to file regular reports, and former Minister Bathabile Dlamini and the Acting CEO were ordered to show cause why they should not be joined personally and held liable for costs. Costs were reserved.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the Constitutional Court’s robust supervisory and remedial role in enforcing socio-economic rights, particularly the right of access to social assistance. It underscores that constitutional obligations to beneficiaries prevail over administrative failures, and that courts may repeatedly extend invalid arrangements only to prevent rights violations, while simultaneously tightening oversight and accountability. The judgment is also significant for advancing personal accountability of public officials in constitutional litigation.