, MSL5901 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE DATE: 13 MAY 2026
1. Introduction
The Constitutional Court judgments in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development
[2017] ZACC 8 and South African Social Security Agency v Minister of Social Development
[2018] ZACC 26 constitute landmark interventions in the administration of social grants
in South Africa. These cases arose from a systemic collapse in the delivery of social
assistance, particularly the unlawful and later invalidated contract between the South
African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (CPS).
At the centre of the Court’s reasoning was a constitutional dilemma: whether to enforce
strict legality by immediately invalidating an unlawful administrative arrangement, or to
prioritise the uninterrupted payment of social grants to millions of vulnerable
beneficiaries. The Court ultimately adopted a remedial approach grounded in section
172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows for “just and equitable” relief. This enabled
the Court to temporarily suspend the consequences of invalid administrative action in
order to protect socio-economic rights.
2. Background to the Litigation and Systemic Administrative Failure
The litigation emerged from a deep institutional crisis in the administration of social
grants. The original outsourcing contract between SASSA and CPS had been declared
constitutionally invalid due to procurement irregularities and non-compliance with
constitutional standards. However, despite this declaration, the state had failed to
DUE DATE: 13 MAY 2026
1. Introduction
The Constitutional Court judgments in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development
[2017] ZACC 8 and South African Social Security Agency v Minister of Social Development
[2018] ZACC 26 constitute landmark interventions in the administration of social grants
in South Africa. These cases arose from a systemic collapse in the delivery of social
assistance, particularly the unlawful and later invalidated contract between the South
African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (CPS).
At the centre of the Court’s reasoning was a constitutional dilemma: whether to enforce
strict legality by immediately invalidating an unlawful administrative arrangement, or to
prioritise the uninterrupted payment of social grants to millions of vulnerable
beneficiaries. The Court ultimately adopted a remedial approach grounded in section
172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows for “just and equitable” relief. This enabled
the Court to temporarily suspend the consequences of invalid administrative action in
order to protect socio-economic rights.
2. Background to the Litigation and Systemic Administrative Failure
The litigation emerged from a deep institutional crisis in the administration of social
grants. The original outsourcing contract between SASSA and CPS had been declared
constitutionally invalid due to procurement irregularities and non-compliance with
constitutional standards. However, despite this declaration, the state had failed to
