UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION
OF SOCIAL GRANTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
MSL5901 Assignment 1 – 2026 (Due: 13 May 2026)
⋄
Module Code: MSL5901
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 13 May 2026
Year: 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSL5901
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MSL5901 Assignment 1 – 2026
Judicial Intervention in the Administration of Social Grants: A Critical Discus-
sion of Black Sash Trust (2017) and SASSA (2018)
1.1 Introduction
Few cases in post-apartheid constitutional history have tested the limits of judicial remedial
power as sharply as the social grants litigation that ran from 2013 through to 2018. At the
centre of this litigation sat a single, urgent question: what happens when the executive fails,
dramatically and repeatedly, to honour its constitutional duty to administer social assistance?
Over eighteen million South Africans, including pensioners, people with disabilities and care-
givers of young children, depend on monthly social grants as their primary source of income.1
The Constitutional Court’s answers to that question, given in Black Sash Trust v Minister of
Social Development and Others 2 and in South African Social Security Agency and Another
v Minister of Social Development and Others,3 reshaped our understanding of structural in-
terdicts, the suspension of declarations of invalidity, and personal ministerial accountability.
This essay critically discusses those interventions, evaluates their constitutional significance,
and offers a personal view on the Court’s willingness to postpone the consequences of unlawful
conduct.
1.2 Background: The AllPay Litigation and the Path to Crisis
The social grants litigation did not begin with Black Sash. Its roots reach back to 2012, when
the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) awarded a ten-billion-rand tender to Cash
Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (CPS) to administer the payment of social grants across all nine
provinces.4 AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings, an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the
award, and in November 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the tender constitutionally
invalid because SASSA had failed to properly verify CPS’s black economic empowerment
credentials and had introduced vagueness into the tender process through a defective bidders’
notice.5
1
Centre for Applied Legal Studies, ‘Social Grants’ (Wits University, 2018) <https://www.wits.ac.za/cals/our-
programmes/business–human-rights/social-grants/> accessed 30 April 2026.
2
Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law NPC Intervening)
(CCT48/17) [2017] ZACC 8; 2017 (3) SA 335 (CC); 2017 (5) BCLR 543 (CC) (17 March 2017) (Black Sash
1 ).
3
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) (SASSA 2018 ).
4
AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African
Social Security Agency and Others [2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC) (AllPay 1 ).
5
ibid paras 50–58.
Page 1 of 14
College of Law
⋄
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION
OF SOCIAL GRANTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
MSL5901 Assignment 1 – 2026 (Due: 13 May 2026)
⋄
Module Code: MSL5901
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 13 May 2026
Year: 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSL5901
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MSL5901 Assignment 1 – 2026
Judicial Intervention in the Administration of Social Grants: A Critical Discus-
sion of Black Sash Trust (2017) and SASSA (2018)
1.1 Introduction
Few cases in post-apartheid constitutional history have tested the limits of judicial remedial
power as sharply as the social grants litigation that ran from 2013 through to 2018. At the
centre of this litigation sat a single, urgent question: what happens when the executive fails,
dramatically and repeatedly, to honour its constitutional duty to administer social assistance?
Over eighteen million South Africans, including pensioners, people with disabilities and care-
givers of young children, depend on monthly social grants as their primary source of income.1
The Constitutional Court’s answers to that question, given in Black Sash Trust v Minister of
Social Development and Others 2 and in South African Social Security Agency and Another
v Minister of Social Development and Others,3 reshaped our understanding of structural in-
terdicts, the suspension of declarations of invalidity, and personal ministerial accountability.
This essay critically discusses those interventions, evaluates their constitutional significance,
and offers a personal view on the Court’s willingness to postpone the consequences of unlawful
conduct.
1.2 Background: The AllPay Litigation and the Path to Crisis
The social grants litigation did not begin with Black Sash. Its roots reach back to 2012, when
the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) awarded a ten-billion-rand tender to Cash
Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (CPS) to administer the payment of social grants across all nine
provinces.4 AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings, an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the
award, and in November 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the tender constitutionally
invalid because SASSA had failed to properly verify CPS’s black economic empowerment
credentials and had introduced vagueness into the tender process through a defective bidders’
notice.5
1
Centre for Applied Legal Studies, ‘Social Grants’ (Wits University, 2018) <https://www.wits.ac.za/cals/our-
programmes/business–human-rights/social-grants/> accessed 30 April 2026.
2
Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law NPC Intervening)
(CCT48/17) [2017] ZACC 8; 2017 (3) SA 335 (CC); 2017 (5) BCLR 543 (CC) (17 March 2017) (Black Sash
1 ).
3
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) (SASSA 2018 ).
4
AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African
Social Security Agency and Others [2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC) (AllPay 1 ).
5
ibid paras 50–58.
Page 1 of 14
