MSL5901
ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 13 MAY 2026
, Social Security Law - MSL5901
ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
I. Introduction and Background to the Dispute
The administration of social grants in South Africa has been the subject of intense constitutional
scrutiny, particularly following the Constitutional Court’s decision in Allpay Consolidated
Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v CEO of SASSA [2013] ZACC 42. In that case, the Court
declared the tender awarded to Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) invalid due to irregularities but
suspended the declaration of invalidity to prevent disruption in grant payments.
Subsequent litigation in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development [2017] ZACC 8 and
SASSA v Minister of Social Development [2018] ZACC 26 arose when the state failed to
regularise the payment system before the expiry of CPS’s contract. These cases required the
Court to intervene directly in the administration of social grants to safeguard the constitutional
rights of millions of beneficiaries.
II. Facts of the Case and Issues Before the Court
In Black Sash Trust (2017), it became apparent that SASSA and the Minister of Social
Development had failed to ensure a lawful and functional system for the payment of social grants
after the CPS contract was due to expire. This created a risk that millions of vulnerable
beneficiaries would not receive their grants.
The key issues before the Court were:
Whether the Court should intervene to prevent a social grants crisis.
Whether it could authorise an unlawful contract to continue temporarily.
The extent of accountability of state officials.
In SASSA v Minister of Social Development (2018), the Court addressed:
ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 13 MAY 2026
, Social Security Law - MSL5901
ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
I. Introduction and Background to the Dispute
The administration of social grants in South Africa has been the subject of intense constitutional
scrutiny, particularly following the Constitutional Court’s decision in Allpay Consolidated
Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v CEO of SASSA [2013] ZACC 42. In that case, the Court
declared the tender awarded to Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) invalid due to irregularities but
suspended the declaration of invalidity to prevent disruption in grant payments.
Subsequent litigation in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development [2017] ZACC 8 and
SASSA v Minister of Social Development [2018] ZACC 26 arose when the state failed to
regularise the payment system before the expiry of CPS’s contract. These cases required the
Court to intervene directly in the administration of social grants to safeguard the constitutional
rights of millions of beneficiaries.
II. Facts of the Case and Issues Before the Court
In Black Sash Trust (2017), it became apparent that SASSA and the Minister of Social
Development had failed to ensure a lawful and functional system for the payment of social grants
after the CPS contract was due to expire. This created a risk that millions of vulnerable
beneficiaries would not receive their grants.
The key issues before the Court were:
Whether the Court should intervene to prevent a social grants crisis.
Whether it could authorise an unlawful contract to continue temporarily.
The extent of accountability of state officials.
In SASSA v Minister of Social Development (2018), the Court addressed:
