Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (071891/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 29 (23 January 2025)

2




JUDGMENT
TWALA, J

Introduction


[1] The advent of the covid -19 pandemic led to alarmingly high unemployment
levels in the Republic, with nearly 30 percent of the population being
unemployed and unable to support themselves and their dependants. In response,
the government intr oduced the Social Relief of Distress grant in May 2020 to
assist individuals aged 18 -59 with insufficient means to support themselves and
their dependants. As hunger and poverty continue to persist in the country, the
grant has been extended with various a mendment of regulations, prompting the
current application.

[2] The first applicant is the Institute for Econo mic Justice (“IEJ”), a non -profit and
independent economic policy think tank organisation advancing and promoting
economic justice to improve the living conditions of the economically excluded.

[3] The second applicant is #Paythegrants (“#PTG”) , a non -profit organisation that
organises working class communities for the protection and realisation of their
right to social secur ity in the Rep ublic.

[4] The first respondent is the Minister of Social Development (“the Minister”) , the
Cabinet and National Executive member in charge of the department of
social development and specifically responsible for the management and
000-2
000-2
3
oversight of social security including the provision of social assistance in terms
of the Social Assistance Act (“the SAA”) 1and the Regulatio ns relating thereto .

[5] The second respondent is the South African Social Security Agency (“SASSA”) ,
a juristic entity established in terms of section 2 of the South African Social
Security Agency Act2 whose objective is to ensure the efficient and effective
management, administration and payment of social assistance to the
beneficiaries.

[6] The third respondent is the Minister of Finance, the Cabinet and Executive
member in charge of the department of National Treasur y which advises on fiscal
policy and public finances , financial relations and expenditure planning and
priorities. It further mana ges the annual budget process and provi des public
finance management support and manage s government’s assets and liabilities.
The Minister of Finance intervened and joined as a party with substantial interest
in the determination of the issues in this case.

[7] In this judgment I propose to refer to the IEJ and #PTG as the applicants and to
the Ministers and SASSA as the respondents. However, where necessary, I will
refer to each of the parties by name or by its number in these proceedings.
Further, reference to the National Treasury will include reference to the Minister
of Finance.

[8] The applicants initiated these proceedings in both their own capacit y and in the
public interest seeking the following orders against the respondents :
8.1 It is declar ed that the Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations Relating to
Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (GN3210 IN GG46271 of 22 April
2022) introduced on 29 May 2023 (“the Regulations”) is unconstitutional

1 13 of 2004 .
2 9 of 2004 .
000-3
000-3
4
and invalid to the extent that it provides for Social Relief of Distress
(“SRD”) grant applications to be lodged on an electronic platform only.
8.2 To remedy the defect in Regulation 3(2), the words “or at the offices of
the Agency” shall be read in after the words “on the electronic platform”.
8.3 It is declared th at the “income” in Regulation 1 means money received on
a regular basis from formal or informal employment, business activities
or investments .
8.4 It is declared that the words “financial support” in Regulation 1 means
money received on a regular basis which benefits the recipi ent, that does
not constitute income, and which the recipient has a legal right to receive.
8.5 In the alternative to paragraphs 3 and 4:
8.5.1 Regulation 1 is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent
that the words “income” and “financial support” mean any
payment received by an SRD grant applicant, regardless of its
source , frequency, or ba sis.
8.5.2 To remedy the defect:
8.5.2.1 a definition of “income” shall be inserted in
Regulation 1 which defines “income” as money
received on a regular basis from formal or informal
employment, business activities or investments; and
8.5.2.2 a definition of “financial assistance” shall be inserted
in Regulation 1 whic h defines “financial support” as
money received on a regular basis which benefits the
recipient, that does not constitute income, and which
the recipient has a legal right to receive.
8.6 It is declared that the following questions included in the online
appli cation questionnaire for the SRD grant are unconstitutional and
invalid:
8.6.1 “How do you usually obtain your basic necessities on a monthly
basis or where do you get money to support yourself if there is no
R350 grant?”
000-4
000-4
5
8.6.2 “How much money did you receive in the l ast month, including
gifts, assistance from anyone, donations, dividends, earnings from
formal or informal employment, but excluding the R350 grant?”
8.7 Regulation 2(3)(c)(i) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent
that it makes provision for “ checks against databases that may indicate
income or alternative financial assistance”.
8.8 Regulation 2(3)(c)(ii) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the
extent that it directs that SRD grant applicants’ applications are assessed
according to a proxy means test consisting of verification of insufficient
means with banks.
8.9 In the alternative to paragraph 8.8, the applicants seek orders:
8.9.1 declaring the conduct of the South African Social Security Agency
(“SASSA”) in applying bank verification to SRD grant
applications unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it:
8.9.1.1 is unable to identify payments that constitute neither
“income” nor “financial assistance”;
8.9.1.2 erroneously registers income where no funds have
been received by the applicant;
8.9.1.3 double -counts intr a-household payments; and/or
8.9.1.4 fails to take into account fluctuations in an
applicant’s income .
8.9.2 directing the DSD and SASSA, within six months of this Court’s
order, to file a report with this Court, confirmed on affidavit, on
what steps they have taken and what steps they intend or are able
to take in order to remedy these deficiencies;
8.9.3 allowing the applicants, within 15 days of delivery of this report,
to file an affidavit in response to the report; and
8.9.4 until this Court is satisfied that the above -mentione d deficiencies
have been remedied, directing DSD and SASSA to disregard the
outcome of bank verification when assessing SRD grant
applications.
000-5
000-5
6
8.10 Regulation 2(3) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it does not stipulate how a conflict between the various methods of
validating “Insufficient means” listed in Regulations 2(3)(a), 2(3)(b) and
2(3)(c) must be resolved.
8.11 Regulation 6(c) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it precludes unsuccessful applicants for the SR D grant from relying on
new information or evidence in an appeal.
8.12 To remedy the defect in Regulation 6(c), the word “not” after the word
“may” is deleted from Regulation 6(c).
8.13 Regulation 5(3)(a) of the Regulations is unconstitutional and invalid to
the extent that it makes payments to beneficiaries of the SRD grant subject
to available funds and permits SASSA to withhold payment of the SRD
grant to SRD grant beneficiaries if available funds are depleted.
8.14 It is declared that SASSA’s failure to pay success ful applicants for the
SRD grant, timeously or at all, is unconstitutional and unlawful.
8.15 It is directed that the SASSA must investigate the cause of widespread
delays in payments to successful SRD grant applicants and devise and
implement a plan to address those delays.
8.16 SASSA is directed to:
8.16.1 deliver the plan referred to in paragraph 8.15 to the parties and this
Court within two months of the date of this order; and
8.16.2 implement the plan without delay
8.17 The applicants are entitled to re -enrol the matter, on duly supplemented
papers, to seek further relief in relation to the SASSA’s implementation
of paragraphs 8.15 or 8.16 above.
8.18 Regulation 2(5) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it sets the income threshold for insufficient means at R624 per person per
month.
8.19 Regulation 5(1) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it sets the monthly amount of the SRD grant at R370 per person.
000-6
000-6
7
8.20 It is declared that sections 27(1) (c) and (2) of the Constitution require s
government to devise and implement a plan to redress the retrogression
in the value of the SRD grant and income threshold, and progressively
increase the value of the SRD grant in Regulation 5(1) and the value of
the income threshold prescribed in Regulation 2(5).
8.21 In devising the plan referred to in paragraph 8.20, the Minister of Social
Development, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, must:
8.21.1 in setting the income threshold to qualify for the SRD grant, give
due consideration to:
8.21.1.1 the right to social assistance in section 27(1)(c) of
the Constitution for people unable to support
themselves, and the need to provide the SRD grant
to all persons unable to support themselves;
8.21.1.2 increases in inflation and the cost of living;
8.21.1.3 objective income measures, including the NPLs
published from time to time by Statistics South
Africa; and
8.21.1.4 the need to ensure that no -one living in poverty is
excluded from accessing the grant.
8.21.2 in setting the value of the SRD grant, giving due consideration to:
8.21.2.1 the right to social assistance in section 27(1)(c) of
the Constitution for people unable to support
themselves;
8.21.2.2 the right to food in section 27(1)(b) of the
Constitution and the impact of the SRD grant in
addressing hunger;
8.21.2.3 the need to re medy the retrogression in the value of
the grant since May 2020;
8.21.2.4 the real terms value of the grant, in the light of
inflation and cost of living; and
000-7
000-7
8
8.21.2.5 the value of the grant in relation to objective income
poverty measures, including the NPLs published
from time to time by Statistics South Africa.
8.22 The Minister of Social Development is directed to:
8.22.1 deliver the plan referred to in paragraph 8.20 to the parties and
this Court within two months of the date of this order; and
8.22.2 implement the plan without delay .
8.23 The applicants are entitled to re -enrol the matter, on duly supplemented
papers, to seek further relief in relation to the Minister of Social
Development’s implementation of paragraphs 8.21 or 8.22 above.
8.24 Any of the respondents that oppose the application are directed to pay the
applicants’ costs.
8.25 Further and/or alternative relief .

[9] The application is opposed by the respondent s who have filed substantial
answering and supplementary affidavits.

Preliminaries

[10] The third respondent was initially not part in these proceedings until it brought
an application to intervene as an interested party which application was granted
with the consent of the parties on 14 August 2024. Further, the re were delays in
the filing of the answering affidavit s by the respondents who sought condonation
for the late filing in their papers which was not opposed by the applicants.
Likewise, the applicants were delayed in filing the reply ing affidavit and sought
condonation for the late filing which was not opposed by the respondents.
Furthermore, the applicants and the third respondent agreed to and filed
supplementary affidavits after the applicants amended their notice of motion
which amendment was not opposed.

000-8
000-8
9
[11] However, the granting of condonation is solely in the discretion of the Court after
the party who sought condonation has demonstrated , by furnishing a reasonable
explanation covering the whole period of the delay , that it is in the interest of
justice that its failure to comply with the time frames be condone d. It is also trite
that the filing of further affidavits can only be done with the permission of the
Court.

[12] In Van Wyk v Unita s Hospital and Another3 the Constitutional Court stated the
following:

“This Court has held that the standard for considering an application for condonation
is the interests of justice. Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant condonation
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Factors that are relevant to this
enquiry include but are not limited to the nat ure of the relief sought, the extent and
cause of the delay, the effect of the delay on the administration of justice and other
litigants, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay, the importance of the issue
to be raised in the intended appeal and the prospects of success.”

[13] The Constitutional Court continued and stated that:

“An applicant for condonation must give a full explanation for the delay. In addition,
the explanation must cover the entire period of delay. And what is more, the
explanation given must be reasonab le”.4

[14] It is my respectful view that the explanation proffered by the parties for the late
filing of the affidavit s and the filing of supplementary affidavits, being the nature
and complexity of the case which necessitated consultation with a number of
people in the respective departments and the applicant in gathering more
information and the promulgation of the amendment to the regulations to the
Social Assistance Act, is reasonable and it would serve t he interests of justice to
condone the non -compliance with the time frames and the rules of court.

3 [2007] ZACC 24; 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC) ; 2008 (4) BCLR 442 (CC) at para 20 .
4 Id at para 22.
000-9
000-9
10

[15] It is noteworthy that the respondents conceded in the ir heads of argument and
their submissions before the Court that the appeal process as provided for by the
regulations does not permit for the filing of further evidence except for what
appears on the application form. T herefore , the appeal procedure is too narrow ,
and it would need to be reconsidered to the extent that it be a broader and wider
appeal proce ss which would allow for the filing of further evidence and
constitute a complete rehearing of and fresh determination on the merits .

[16] Furthermore, it happened on the second day of the hearing that the first and
second respondents ’ counsel handed up a document which the applicants were
not afforded an opportunity to consider as it was given to them minutes before
the Court started. In their reply , the applicants objected to the admission and use
of this document . They contended that there was no application and or an
affidavit accompanying the document to explain why it was necessary to be filed
at this late stage of the proceedings .

[17] I am unable to disagree with the applicants that it is impermissible for the first
and second respondents to file the document without observing the normal rules
of the Court which provide for the party who wishes to file further documents to
make a n application to Court. No such application was launched by t he
respondents . However, counsel for the applicants engaged the document in his
submission and I will elaborate on that in the body of this judgment.

[18] In Khunou & Others v M Fihrer & Son (Pty) Ltd and Others5 the Court stated
the following:

“The proper function of a Court is to try disputes between litigants who have real
grievances and to see to it that justice is done. The rules of civil procedure exist in order
to enable Courts to perform this duty with which, in turn, the orderly function ing, and

5 1982 (3) SA 353 (W) at 355E -H.
000-10
000-10
11
indeed the very existence, of society is inextricably interwoven. The Rules of Court are
in a sense merely a refinement of the general rule of civil procedure. They are designed
not only to allow litigants to come to grips as expeditiously and as inexpensively as
possible with the real issues between them, but also to ensure that the Courts dispense
justice uniformly and fairly, and that the true issues aforementioned are clarified and
tried in a just manner.”

[19] In Trans -African Insurance Co Ltd v Maluleka6 the court stated the following:

“No doubt parties and their legal advisers should not be encouraged to become slack in
the observance of the Rules, which are an important element in the machinery for the
administration of justice. But on the ot her hand, technical objections to less than perfect
procedural steps should not be permitted, in the absence of prejudice, to interfere with
the expeditious and, if possible, inexpensive decision of cases on their real merits.”

[20] Although it is impermissible for parties to ambush each other in court
proceedings, it is my considered view that the applicants did not suffer any
preju diced by the filing of this document. It is a document which dealt with the
recent statistics of the payment or failure to pay by the first and second
respondents of the SRD grant to the successful beneficiaries who are entitled to
receive the SRD grant. The document conveyed the same message as the other s
which were annexed to the founding papers except that the n umbers changed in
time. I hold the view theref ore that, in the circumstances of this case, its
magnitude and complexity and the impact it will have on the public , it is in the
interest of justice to consider all the information that is placed before this Court.

Factual Background

[21] The genesis of this case ar ose when in May 2020 the government promulgated
the Social Relief of Distres s (“SRD”) grant as a temporary mechanism in terms

6 1956 (2) SA 273 (A) at 278F -G. Quoted with approval in Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Mdladla and Another
[2014] ZAGPJHC 20.
000-11
000-11
12
of the Dis aster Management Act (“DMA”)7, which was at the time intended to
be of temporary duration to alleviate hunger to people with insufficient means
and who could not support themselves and their dependants follow ing the
devastation caused by the Covid –19 pandemic . The SRD grant targeted
unemployed working -age adults and was not means -tested at the time . The value
of the grant was an amount of R350 .00 per month . The SRD grant has been
extended for some time until the end of the State of Disaster in 2022 .

[22] In terms of the directi ves which were issued by the Minister introduc ing the SRD
grant in May 2020, the value of the grant was R350 and was meant for
individuals who were South African citizens, permanent residents or refugees
currently resid ing in the Republic who were above the age of 18 and were
unemployed. The grant was only available to people who did not receive any
income or other social grant. The applicants for the SRD grant were to lodge
their applications electronically over and above any other available means of
lodging such applications.

[23] Furthermore, the directi ves provided for the verification of the applicants’
income and social security benefits with input from the banking institutions and
having regard to the various government databases , including the Home Affairs ;
UIF; NSFAS ; and SARS . In June 2020 a substantive change to the directives
was effected by a court order which declared the exclusion of asylum seekers
and special permit holders from benefiting from the grant unconstitutional and
invalid.

[24] In August 2021 , the Minister issued directive s which intr oduced an amendment
to the grant eligibility criteria aimed at including unemployed caregivers
receiving the childcare grant and in troduced the qualifying threshold for
insufficient means of R595 which was only app lied in the appeals process .

7 57 of 2002.
000-12
000-12
13
Further , the directive introduced the electronic appeal process which barred the
appellants /applicants from submitting any new or additional evidence.

[25] On 22 April 2022, the Minister promulgated regulations under the SAA which
placed the SRD grant under the SAA, and it continued unchanged from what it
was under the D MA. In these April 2022 regulations, an applicant would qualify
for the grant if he or she is of insufficient means and does not unreasonably refuse
to accept employment or educational opportunities. It also decreased the
qualifying insufficient means threshold from R595 to R350 per person per month
and dispensed with the requirement of unemploy ment . The applicants for the
SRD grant were now only required to lodge their applications electronically .

[26] Further, for the purposes of validating insufficient means of the applicants , the
bank verification was regarded as definite in the event that there was a conflict
between the bank verification and database verification . The recipient of the
SRD grant would be paid for a period not exceeding three months at a time
without him or her confirming that he or she still meets the gran t’s eligibility.
All the payments of the SRD grant were subject to the availabilit y of funds and
that SASSA was to limit disbursement when the funds were depleted.

[27] It is undisputed that, as a result of the stringent criteria for eligibility for the SRD
grant, the applications between March 2022 and April 2022 dropped from over
15.8 million to just over 8 .1 million and the approvals from 10.9 million to 5.6
million. However, in June 2022 the Black Sash, a civil society organisation
brought an application challenging the reduction of the income threshold from
R595 to R350 as well as other exclusionary provisions in the April 2022
regulations. This re sulted in a settle ment agreement reached between the parties
which was made an order of court that the Minister amend the regulations and
increase the insufficient means or qualifying threshold to the current sum of
R624 .00 which was in line with the food poverty line at the time.

000-13
000-13
14
[28] The SRD grant regulations have been amended on three occasions since May
2020 which amendments introduced the new qualifying criteria for the applicants
and the latest amendment was on the 25 March 2024 when the SRD grant
received an increase of R20.00 to increase its value to R370. However, since
August 2022 there has been no increase in the value of the income threshold of
R624 even though the food pover ty line had been raised to R663. It is th e March
2024 amendment to the SRD grant regulations that necessitated the amendment
of the applicants’ notice of motion and the filing of the supplementary affidavits.

[29] It is not in dispute that when the SRD grant was introduced in May 2020, it was
restricted to unemployed adu lts and later it was extended to adults with little or
no income. More than 16 million poor South Africans benefited from the SRD
grant in the initial stages. With the promulgation of the regulations to the SRD
grant and the subsequent amendments to these regulations, the number of
applicants that were approved to receive the grant was drastically reduced. While
in March 2023 , 14 million people applied for the grant , only 8.3 million of those
applications were approved. This has resulted in the National Treasury reducing
its budget for the grant from R44 billion to R3 6 billion in the 2023/2024 budget.

[30] Furthermore, it is undisputed that the government acted swif tly in establishing
and implementing the SRD grant in May 2020 which has been extended beyond
the end of the state of disaster to alleviate the problems of hunger , reduce poverty
and stimulate the economy. It is not in dispute that hunger, poverty and
unemployment are the most profound crises confronting the Republic .

The Parties Submissions

[31] The applicant s say that they are challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality
of the steps the government has taken and or failed to take , to implement its own
commitment to meeting its constitutional obligation to progressively realise
access to social assistance by providing the SRD grant to working -age adults
000-14
000-14
15
who need it. This is so because certain aspects of the SRD grant regulations an d
the procedures for applying for the SRD grant have as their effect, if not their
purpose, the irrational, arbitrary and unfair denial of social assistance to persons
who are legally entitled to receive it.

[32] Section 27 of the Constitution , so the argument continued, creates a justiciable
right to social security as it provides that everyone has the right to have access
to sufficient food and water and social security if they are unable to support
themselves and their depe ndants. Further, section 7 of the Constitution provides
that the State bears an over -arching obligation to respect, protect, promote and
fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.

[33] The applicants say that there is a positive obligation which is created by the
Constitution on the State which is the right of access to social security for
everyone who is unable to support themselves and their dependents ; and on the
other hand, it imposes a negative obligation on the State to desist from pre venting
or hindering of access to social security or social assistance. Further, t he right to
social security, as entrenched in the Constitution, has as its purpose , as part of
the of socio -economic rights , to ensure that the State continues to take reasonable
legislative and other measures to progressively achieve the realisation of the
rights to the necessities of life.

[34] Although the SRD grant is means -tested like all other grants, so it was contended,
the people who are ent itled to receive it are however treated differently as they
have to apply strictly on -line to access it. The online only application proc ess for
the SRD grant applications is restrictive and imposes an insuperable barrier for
many would -be applicants who lack access to digital technology or lack digital
literacy and who experience poor or limited internet connectivity. The online
application process ignores the fact that the SRD grant is meant for poor people ,
some of whom do not have smart cell phones and access to the internet.

000-15
000-15
16
[35] The applicants submitted further that the respondents are differentiating the
SRD grant from the other grants as some kind of sui generis grant on the basis
that they classify it as a te mporary measure both in the relief it provides and its
status as a social g rant. However, the SRD grant is listed in the S AA as the same
as the other social grants which are means -tested but whose applicants are not
required to apply online -only, and it allows an in -person alte rnative where
applicants could be assisted by the SASSA staff. These barriers, so it was argued,
disproportionately affect poo r and rural South Africans who ought to apply for
and qualify to receive the SRD grant.

[36] Furthermore, the screening questions on the on -line application form for
ascertaining an SRD grant applicant’s financial means seeks irrelevant
information and are ultra vires the SRD grant regulations. These questions
require the SRD grant applicants to state what they were living on or how they
usually obtain their basic necessities on a monthly basis or where they get money
to support themselves if they were not in receipt of the R350 , now R370 , SRD
grant. Furthermore, SRD grant applicants must state how much money they have
recei ved in the previous month, including gifts, assistance from any one,
donations, dividends, earnings from forma l or informal employment, but
excluding the R370 SRD grant.

[37] Following the correct interpretative process , these two questions as they appear
on the online application process, so it was contended, would elicit information
about money which the applicant received but which is neither income nor
financial support and is therefore irrelevant to an applicant’s eligibility for the
SRD grant. It was contended further that these questions elicit irrelevant answers
which do not assist SASSA in its determination of whether the applicant meet s
the income qualifying threshold .

[38] The first and second respondents , so it was contended, have buckled under
pressure from National Treasury and have put in place procedural barriers that
000-16
000-16
17
arbitrarily and unreasonably exclude people who are eligible to receive the SRD
grant from receiving it. This is so because the Department of Social Development
(“DSD”) has openly admitted that these barriers are designed to reduce the
number of SRD grant recipients in order to remain within the budget allocated
by National Treasury.

[39] It was contended by the applicants that the use of the automated bank verification
as a way of verifying an applicant’s means is unreasonable since it only shows
how much money the grant applicant has received that month without verifying
the reason why the mone y was paid into the account of the applicant. The
government databases verification is fraught with errors and inaccuracies since
it is not regularly updated. Further, so it was argued, the re is no reason to regard
the bank verification as conclusive if there is a contradiction between it and the
databases verification as the applicant may have received money for purpose s
other than supporting himself or herself.

[40] The government databases such as the Home Affairs ; SARS ; NSFAS ; and UIF
are unreliable and cause a lot of inclusion and exclusion errors. In its report of
efficiency vs implementation of the 4 October 2021, the Southern Africa n
Labour and Development Research Unit ( “SALDRU”) stated that the current
SRD implementation highlights result of lo wer feasibility and large exclusion
errors . Furthermore, t hat d iscussions with SRD officials reveal that the
unemployment data used is over 1-2 years old and that together with high labour
market ch urn, this suggest s a 35% false rejection r ate. Thus , in the current SRD
it suggests that 4.5 million of the 13 million truly eligible claimants are falsely
rejected and potentially accounting for almost all current rejections.8

[41] The applicants submitted that it is a n unreasonable expectation that the claimants
or beneficiaries should always endeavour to update their details on the

8 SALDRU and the National Treasury Health and Social Development Team Report on Social Policy Options (4
October 2021)
000-17
000-17
18
government’s databases. However, so it was argued, the respondents must come
with a plan to resolve the issue of exclusions of such proportion s. DSD and the
SASSA ha ve not shown what has been done to change the situation and has
failed to take the Court into its confidence in this regard.

[42] The interpretation ascribed to income and financial support by the respondents
in order to determine that a person qualif ies to receive the SRD grant is incorrect
since it includes all moneys received in the bank account of the applicant in that
particular month. The interpretation includes any money received for any
purpose. This, so the argument went, result s in the assessment of eligibility
including even once -off payments which are for a different purpose. The proper
interpretation is to consider the purpose of the legislation and that it must be
consistent with the Constitution. The interpretation th at should be preferred is
one that should best give effect to the rights in the Bill of Rights .

[43] The applicants submitted that it is perverse to classify payments that were made
to a recipient as income and or financial support because they do not have
sufficient means to support themselves. The correct interpretation is that income
means money received on a regular basis from formal or informal employment.
Financial support should be interpreted to include regular payments which
benefit the re cipient, t hat do not constitute inc ome and which the recipient has a
legal right to receive. The purposive interpretation of income and financial
support should be referring to payments which afford a person the means to
support themselves without the need to rely o n the discretion or charity of others.

[44] Government has estimated that approximately 18.3 million people are withi n the
eligible age group with income below the threshold . DSD and SASSA have been
able to remain within budget by reducing the uptake of deserving and qualifying
people by using the procedural barriers to access the SRD grant. DSD and
SASSA have done so because the amended regulations provide that all payment s
of the SRD grant are limited to the amount appropriated for the 202 3/2024
000-18
000-18
19
financial year to the vote of Social Development . Once the funds as allocated by
National Treasury are depleted, so it was contended, no payments would be made
to successful and approved beneficiaries.

[45] Although t he budget cap of the SRD grant has not yet been implemented, so the
argument went, it threatens the right of beneficiaries to receiving the grant. The
respondents do not anticipate an increase in the poo l of people who will apply
for the grant – hence the regulation providing for the SRD grant not to be paid
when the funds appropriated by National Treasury have been depleted.

[46] Despite admi tting that the number of people who would be eligible to receive the
SRD grant may be as high as 18.3 million, National Treasury has reduced the
budget for the SRD grant from R36 billion to R33.6 billion for the 2024/2025
financial year which is sufficient only to cover 8 million beneficiaries. This is
the result of the use of administrative and procedural obstacles which serve the
purpose of excluding people who are most vulnerable and in need of social
assistance , and who would ordinar ily be eligible , from receiving the grant .

[47] The applicants contended that National Treasury cannot appropriate to itself the
right to speak on behalf of the whole of government. National Treasury has, in
order to supress the number of beneficiaries, pressurised the DSD and SASSA
to put in place procedural barriers that arbitrarily and un reasonably exclude
person s who are eligible to receive the SRD grant from receiving it. The
reduction of the number of eligible beneficiaries , results in National Treasury ’s
continuation to provide inadequate funding for the SRD grant.

[47] The applicants say that the value of the SRD grant has declined from what it was
when it was introduced in May 2020 since it has not been increased until
March 2024 when an increase of R20 was effected to make the value of the grant
R370 per month . The increase of R20 , so it was contended, does not come close
to keeping up with inflation and this means that the real value of the grant has
000-19
000-19
20
declined substantially from what it was in May 2020. Further, the income
qualifying threshold of R624 has not been increased like ot her social grants
meaning an applicant for the SRD grant must be poorer than an applicant who
received the grant in 2022. This means that the grant has substantially
retrogress ed in value.

[48] It was argued by the applicants that, although National Treasury has
emphatically stated that an increase in the value of the SRD grant was
unaffordable, surprisingly it afforded an increase of R20 with effect from April
2024. Such an increase in the value of the SRD grant does not cure the
government’s breach of its ob ligation to take steps to progressively realise access
to social assistance for it has not corrected the substantial erosion of the grant’s
real value as it remains well below the 2023 National Food Poverty Line
(“NFP L”) and in particular , it equates to less than half the 2023 NFPL of R760.

[49] National Treasury, so it was submitted, must weigh its priorities to make funds
available to DSD in terms of budgeting. There is substantial room when dealing
with underspending coupled with budget cuts. The budget for the SRD grant in
2023/2024 was R36 billion but due to underspending the budget for 2024/2025
is R33.6 billion. The R36 billion was informed by several factors including
projected growth in uptake and available resources. However, the actual
spending for the SRD grant in 2022 /2023 was R30.3 billion and the increase to
R36 billion for 2023/2024 was considerable.

[50] The applicants say that besides the cap and limitation placed by the regulations
not to pay the SRD grant once the funds , as appropriated by the National
Treasury to DSD for the SRD grant , are depleted , there are also systemic delays
and failures to timeously pay the SRD grant to successful and approved
applicants. It is apparent, so it was contended, that SASSA does not have a plan
to address the non-payment since thousand s of approved beneficiaries are not
000-20
000-20
21
paid their SRD grant each month. This has devastating consequences on SRD
grant applicants who reasonably depend on receiving payment of the grant.

[51] It was contended that in its report to Parliament in September 2023, SASSA ’s
explanation as to why people have not been paid the SRD grant was because they
had not furnished SASSA with their new banking details which is not plausible.
SASSA cannot proffer a cogent explanation as to how many people have not
submitted their new bank accounts or how ma ny have changed their payment
details and how many accounts are pending bank verification. It is not sufficient
for SASSA to say certain payments were returned by the bank and that cash send
client s’ payments also bounced back without furnishing the exact number of such
payments and what it has done to resolve the problem.

[52] Furthermore, the applicants submitted that the Plascon -Evans9 rule is applicable
in this case in that the respondents have completely failed to address the issues
raised by the confirmatory affidavits filed by the many SRD grant beneficiaries
with the applicants’ founding affidavit. The respondents were dead s ilent in their
answering affidavits on the confirmatory affidavits detailing the exclusion of
people due to errors in the government databases and the non-payment of the
SRD grant to approved beneficiaries. Further, people have been excluded by the
online application due to lack of access to smartphone s and for receiving money
in their bank accounts other than the SRD grant .

[53] Even if National Treasury says that an increase in the SRD grant is un affordable,
so it was contended, it cannot justify the deployment of exclusionary, irrational
and unreasonable procedural barriers to accessing the SRD grant . Further,
government must devise and implement a plan to address the retrogression in
value of the SRD grant and the income qualifying threshold rather th an say that
the SRD grant is already unaffordable . National Treasury cannot usurp the power

9 Plascon -Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A).
000-21
000-21
22
of the Minister to determine the value of the SRD grant as provided for in the
SAA.

[54] It is submitted further by the applicants that National Treasury has no role to
speak on behalf of the whole government and on substantive issues. The vital
role of National Treasury is resource and revenue generation and application.
Although the regulations require the concurrence of National Treasury , such
concurrence should not be unreasonably withheld . The role of the Minister is to
promulgate the regulations, and National Treasury is to provide a budget to
enable the Minister and his department to perform its functions.

[55] The applicants say that the deployment of exclusionary, irrational and
unreasonable procedural barriers ; the differ entiation of the SRD grant from other
grants ; the retrogress ive and irrational value of the SRD grant and income
threshold ; and the widespread non -payment of thousands of successful
applicant s by SASSA , limit the rights to social assistance for the applicants of
the grant. The onus is on the Mi nister to establish that these limitations of
fundamental rights are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic
society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

[56] National Treasury says that the SRD grant is a temporary measure as explicit in
the regulations in that it provides for relief to a person in need of temporary
assistance. It is a form of temporary assistance which is paid t o person s with
insufficient means , subject to the various rules and qualifications set out in the
SRD regulations. The medium to long -term plan of National Treasury, having
realised the extreme levels of poverty faced by far too many South Africans, is
to facilitate and promote economic growth which creates jobs. Government
policy , as reflected in the S AA and the SRD grant regulations, is not to treat the
SRD grant and the other grants in the same way.

000-22
000-22
23
[57] There are a number of plans which are aimed at reducing poverty and in time
eradicating it. These plans are detailed and complex. The most important factor
which feature s in the problem of the inability to support oneself is
unemployment. To address this, a focus is needed on factors which inc lude
economic growth, skills building, prioritisation of specific groups of people in
the provision of employment opportunities education, training and other , so say s
Treasury.

[58] National Treasury submitted that there are fiscal constraints since gov ernment
can only spend money it extracts from the economy through taxes. Borrowing
money does not solve the problem for it is nothing more than deferred taxation.
Something has to fund social assis tance and in particular the SRD grant . It is the
taxpayer , so it w as argued, who has to shoulder the burden, and the tax base is
relatively small . The demands on the State are virtually every facet of society
including the obligations flowing from the socio -economic rights in the
Constitution . However, t he State ’s obligations go well beyond socio -economic
rights.

[59] At the moment , says National Treasury, the Republic has a high level of
unemployed people compared to the number of people who are economically
active and contributing to the tax base - thus limited resources are available to
support the many programmes which are currently being undertaken across
government. The fiscal position of the country is precarious as expenditure
exceeds revenue by R 321.6 billion in 2024/2025 and the gross borrowing
requirement is R559 .6 billion rising to R623 billion in 2025/2026. Therefore,
government cannot expand social grants further due to drops in anticipated
reven ue and increasing debt service costs.

[60] Furthermore, to expand social grant s and the SRD grant would require
substantial expenditure , and the money has to come from somewhere and it
would have to come at the expense of some other expenditure. Increasing taxes
000-23
000-23
24
is not a solution because after many years of increasing taxes to arrest the
growing debt, government has instead avoided tax increases since 2020 to limit
the negative impact on businesses, household s and the economy. Extending the
SRD grant any further will place the entire grant system in jeopardy.

[61] The government’s prioritisation of ot her grants, so it was submitted, must be
understood in the context that the State spends R250 billion per year on social
grants which is 12.3% of government’s main budget expenditure. The fiscal
constraints facing government require the expenditure to be reduced by R200
billion between now and 2026/2027 whilst revenue is projected to drop by R66
billion in 2024/2025 and 89.5 billion in 2025/202 6 and the debt servicing costs
will be R425 billion by that time. At the same time the pool of social grant
recipients is expanding by 200 000 recipients per year leaving aside the massive
increase in grant rec ipients as a result of the SRD grant .

[62] National Treasury submitted further that, in any reasonable system in which
public money is used to provide benefits to member s of the population,
procedural safeguards are applied to ensure that only those to whom a particular
benefit is due may access it. It is so to prevent the abuse and the more
sophisticated the economy , the more sophisticated the safeguards. The Republic
has limited and finite resources available for public spending . Hence the
safeguards are p articularly necessary and important for the SRD grant, which is
on a large scale , in order to prevent fraud ; waste ; erroneous payments ; and
payment s to persons falling outside of a particular beneficiary category.

[63] The introduction of the bank means test ing was, so it was contended, an
invaluable reform as no other method could as reliably provide proof of
individual income and financial support. Although it is not applicable to other
grants, it is a reliable means testing which weed s out every illegitimate claim
since the SRD grant is on a large scale . By using the bank verification test, those
who are approved will clearly satisfy the description of being the neediest.
000-24
000-24
25
Further, to mitigate the erroneous exclusions , an appeal process is available and
the regulation relating thereto may be amended to make the process wider to
accommodate the furnishing of further information on appeal.

[64] It is submitted further by the National Treasury that the SRD grant is large and
as such there is an obvious need to put in place procedural safeguards to
minimise the misuse of public funds . Hence the online application and the bank
means testing , although regarded by some as a blunt instrument, are necessary
and achieve the purpose of excluding those applicants who are not entitled to
receive the SRD grant . If the means test by a bank verification process were not
avail able, such will result in SRD grant s paid on a universal basis and would
have the result that those who do not need soc ial benefits would receive them.

[65] The applicants avoided approach ing the Court by way of a review which would
have afforded the respondents an opportuni ty to produce a record and reasons
for the decision to pass the regulations under attack . National Treasury does not
usurp the powers of the Minister to pass the regulations of the social grant but
has, by law , a veto power on the regulations of the social grants . National
Treasury is better placed to put up evidence of financial constraints and other
matters concerning the budget and allocation of resource s.

[66] The intention of parliament, so it was argued, is embodied in the SAA and the
Regulations and no more or less. Public statements by politicians , even if they
are members of parliament including the Minister or the President , are just
statements and cannot supplant the legislative function of parliament. It is only
parliament which is empowered to make the law in the Republic. Should
parliament’s discretion be fettered in advance of its exercise , it would infringe
on fundamental constitutional principle s.

[67] Like other s ocio-economic rights , the State is obliged to take reasonable
legislative and other measures within its available resources to achieve the
000-25
000-25
26
progressive realisation of these rights . However, there are various components
to the right , one of which is effectively a condition precedent in that access to
social assistance arises only if a person is unable to support themselves and their
dependants. This, says National Treasury, necessitate s an inquiry into whether
the applicant for the grant is unable to support themselves and their dependants.

[68] It was contended further that a ll the social grants are different and are subject to
different requiremen ts. The SRD grant is a temporary measure and there are
legislative exclusions which are meant to benefit the majority. It cannot be
immediately realisable, instead it i s subject to progressive realisation and there
has been progressive realisation of the S RD grant even though it is not enough ,
so says the National Treasury. The resources available to fund the SRD grant
have always been limited compelling the setting of the grant at R350 per month
in 2020.

[69] The SRD grant has been progressively realised by the very fact that it was
introduced for the first time in 2020 with the eligibility criteria being R0 at the
time. The eligibility criteria of the SRD grant was increased to R350 and further
to R595 and then to R624 thereby substantially increasing the po ol of the
beneficiaries. Recently, in 2024 the value of the grant amount was increased by
R20 to the sum of the R370 . A factor that distinguishes it from other grants is
that it is intended to be of a temporary nature and designed to deal with disasters.

[70] It was submitted o n behalf of the National Treasury that the State does not have
unlimited resources, and these resources are to be distributed to meet a vast range
of competing demand s. It does not avail the applicants to have a cavalier attitude
when dealing with budgetary constraints . The state has a budget for the SRD
grant based on certain considerations which include the amount spent in the
previous financial year. The tax base of the Republic has shrunk due to
unemployment and incre asing taxes would not improve the situation but will
cause more distress on the taxpayer .
000-26
000-26
27

[71] National Treasury say s the online application process is a measure which is
designed to minimise fraud and to ensure that the eligibility criteria are met. It
was never enacted for a different and improper or ulterior purpose other than to
weed out all those appli cants who do not qualify and are not entitled to receive
the SRD grant. Although this measure may reduce the uptake , it is not
unreasonable or irrational. It is unreasonable to expect the State to retrofit the
SASSA offices to provide for a less ef ficient form of application process instead
of implementing the more efficient online process.

[72] The National Treasury contended that the questions on the online process are
intended to elicit disc losures of payments which are not income or financial
support . These questions are legitimate and go to the core issue of insufficient
means. They require the applicants to show how the y obtain their basic
necessities if they have not received the R350 and how much money they
received in the previous month from any other source except from the SRD grant.
These question s are not irrelevant for the purpose of the eligibility criteria of the
SRD grant.

[73] If any applicant was impermissibly excluded, so it was argued, that would be
addressed by the wide appeal process which the respondents are not opposing .
The questions are therefore not unlawful and th e abuse of power by officials
cannot be the reason to declare the regulation constitutionally invalid. There is a
presumption that administrative power conferred by an act of parliament will be
exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.

[74] The interpretation ascribed by the respondents to the meaning of “income ” and
“financial support ” accords with the regulations and is not unbusinesslike. The
reliance on the dictionary definition of income is misconceived in that it does not
include ad hoc payment s or charity from others. The only correct approach to
interpretation is firstly the words used in the statute, the context in which they
000-27
000-27
28
are used and the purpose of the statute. The approach to exclude loans and gifts
in substantial amounts would lead to outcomes which are insensible and would
increase the value of the grant by up to R60 billion per year.

[75] Regarding the absence of conflict resolution mechanisms to address conflic ts
between the information on the databases and the information provided through
the bank verification system, th e respondents contended that these conflicts
could be resolved by the wide appeal process which could rehear the matter with
the provision of f urther evidence. It cannot be said, so it was argued, that the
regulation is therefore irrational and was enacted for an improper or ulterior
purpose.

[76] The attack on the regulation that payments are subject to the availability of funds
and are limited to the amount appropriated to the 2024/2025 financial year to the
vote of social development for social relief of distress is unmeritorious and
speculative. There has never been a time previously that the budget has been
exceeded , and no p erson has been turned away because money has run out.
However, so it was argued, if it happens that money runs out, the inevitable
outcome would be eligible people not receiving their SRD grant, and that is not
illogical , arbitrary and or irrational.

[77] The National Treasury submitted that it does not dispute that the value of the
SRD grant and the qualifying threshold levels are worth less than when they were
introduced and that they have not kept pace with inflation or the NFPL. Indeed,
all grants have to be progressively increased in value to keep pace with inflation
to avoid retrogression and a resulting risk of being in breach of the Constitution.
However, the obligation to increase the SRD grant and all other grants is
depend ent on the availability of resources.

[78] Nevertheless, there has been progressive realisation of the SRD grant as it has
been increased by R20 to R370 per month in the current financial year. But
000-28
000-28
29
because of budgetary constraints , the increase is not enough and does not accord
with inflation and still places the SRD grant below the food poverty line. To
increase it to be in line with inflation, it means money must come from
somewhere and that is difficult since the tax base has shrunk due to
unemployment in the c ountry.

[79] The first and second respondents , making common cause with the
National Treasury, contended that it is important not to lose sight of the purpose
of the SRD grant . It is a temporary measure to relieve p eople who are of
insufficient means to support themselves and their dependants. The database
verification process is a useful tool in providing information about people who
appear thereon which is proof that they have receive d funds from those
institutions. The online process is quicker, simple and can be accessed by anyone
using a smartphone which they could even borrow from friends or relatives or
from their Chief if living in rural areas .

[80] The delays in payment of the SRD grant, so it was contended, was caused by
glitches that were experienced with the system in the beginning but has since
been resolved. Other problems are cause d by the approved beneficiaries who do
not update their details or bank accounts and cell phone numbers regularly. The
delays in paymen t and non -payment of the SRD grant to the benefic iaries has
been reduced drastically as it was more than a million previously and now is in
the hundreds of thousands.

Legal Framework

[81] To put the matter into perspective, it is now opportune to restate the relevant
provisions of the Constitution .



000-29
000-29
30
Section 7 :
“Rights .—(1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of the democracy in South Africa.
It enshrines the right of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of
human dignity, equality and freedom
(2) The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of
Rights
(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or
referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill. ”

Section 9 :
“Equality .—(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection
and benefit of the law
(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To
promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designe d to protect
or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimin ation
may be taken.
(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone
on one or more ground, including race , gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic
or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience , belief,
culture, language and birth.
…
(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair
unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.”

Section 27:
“Health care, food, water and social security .—(1) Everyone has the right to
have access to —
(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their
dependants, appropriate social assistance.
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its
available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of th ese rights.
(3)… ”


000-30
000-30
31

Section 39 :
“Interpretation of Bill of Rights .—(1) when interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court,
tribunal or forum –
(a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based
on human dignity, equality and freedom;
(b) must consider international law; and
(c) may consider foreign law.
(2) When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or
customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit , purport and
objects of the Bill of Rights
(3) The Bill of Rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms
that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law, or legislation, to the
extent that they are consistent with the Bill. ”

[82] This case involves the administration of the SRD grant which falls within the
purview of the second respondent and the Minister being the responsible head.
It is therefore useful to restate the provisions of the Social Assistance Act and
the Regulations which are relevant to the discussion that will follow .

Section 4 :
“Provision of social assistance .—The Minister must, with the concurrence of the
Minister of Finance, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose, make
available—
(a) a child support grant;
….
(h) social relief of distress ”

Section 5 :
“Eligibility for social assistance . — (1) A person is entitled to the appropriate social
assistance if he or she —
(a) Is eligible in terms of section6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 ;”

Section 13 :
000-31
000-31
32
“Social Relief of Distress .—(1) A person is, subject to section 5, eligible for social
relief of distress if the person qualifies as prescribed.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) and sections 27, 41 and 55 of the Disaster
Management Act, any person may qualify for social relief of distress if his or her
household has been affected by a disaster.
(3) The Agency must, subject to subsections (1) and (2), disburse the social relief
of distress as prescribe d.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Agency may in the event of a disaster and
depending on the magnitude of the disaster and the availability of resources, determine
as prescribed, the needs of the affected communities and disburse the social relief of
distress. ”

[83] The Regulations to the S AA which are relevant to the discussion that will follow
provide the following —

Regulation 1:
“Definitions …
‘Insufficient means ’ means that a person is not in receipt of income or financial
support; ”

Regulation 2 :
“Persons eligible for Covid –19 Social Relief of Distress .—(1) Subject to section 5,
read with section 13 of the Act, a person in need of temporary assistance, may qualify
for the social relief of distress called the Covid –19 Social Relief of Distress if he or she
is a person with insufficient means.
…
(3) For the purposes of validating insufficient means, the Agency may use –
(a) a declaration from the applicant attesting to such; and
(b) a screening questionnaire; and
(c) a proxy means test consisting of –
(i) checks against databases that may indicate income or alternative
financial assistance; and
(ii) verification of insufficient means with banks.
(4) …
(5) The income threshold for insufficient means, contemplated in this regulation,
is R624 per person per month. ”
000-32
000-32
33

Regulation 3:
“Procedure for application for Covid Social Relief of Distress .—(1) A person
may apply for the Covid –19 Social Relief of Distress if the person complies with the
criteria set out in regulation 2.
(2) An application for the Covid –19 Social Relief of Distress must be lodged on
the electronic platfo rm.”

Regulation 5 :
“Amount and period of payment .—(1) The monthly amount of the Covid –19
Social Relief of Distress is R370 per person and is payable for the mo nths in the period
1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025
(2) …
(3) The payments in terms of these regulations –
(a) are limited to the amount appropriated for the 2024/2025 financial year to the
vote of Socia l Development for social relief of distress; and
(b) may only be made in respect of applications, made during the period 1 April
2022 to 31 March 2025, and approved by the Agency. ”

Regulation 6 :

“Appeal against decision of Agency .—Notwithstanding the regulations governing
appeal s as contemplated in section 14(3) (b)(iii) and section 18 of the Act, the appeal
process for the Covid –19 Social Relief of Distress is as follows:
(a) If an applicant disagrees with the decision of the Agency in relation to an
application for the Covid -19 Social Relief of Distress contemplated in
regulation 3(1), the applicant or a person actin g on his or her behalf may,
within a period not exce eding 90 days of the date of the decision, lodge an
appeal on the electronic platform;
(b) the Minister must appoint such number of persons as members of the
Independent Tribunal as may be necessary to consider and decide on the
appeals regarding the Covid -19 Social Relief of Distress;
(c) When lodging an appeal, the applicant or the person acting on his or her behalf
may not submit any evidence or information which was not provided to the
Agency at the time of the application;
(d) …”
000-33
000-33
34
Discussion

[84] Section 7 of the Constitution provides that the Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of
democracy in the Republic and enshrines the rights of all people in the country
and affir ms the democratic values of h uman dignity, equality and freedom. The
rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights may be limit ed only if it is reasonable
and justifiable when taking into account all relevant factors. Further, t he State is
enjoined by the Constitution to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in
the Bill of Rights .

[85] In section 9 , the Constitution provides that everyone is equal before the law and
has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Equality includes the full
and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedom s and to promote the achievement
of equality, l egislative and other measures designed to protect or advance
persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may
be taken . Furthermore, the State may not unfairly discriminate directly or
indirectly against anyone on one or more g rounds unless it is established that the
discrimination is fair.

[86] The applicants are challenging the lawfulness and constitu tional ity of the steps
taken or not taken by government in implementing its own commitment to
meeting its constitutional obligations imposed by section 27 of the Constitution
to progressively realise access to social assistance by providing the SRD grant
to working -age adults who are entitled to it. The applicants’ stance is that the
regulations and the procedure for applying for the SRD grant have as their effect ,
if not their purpose, the irrational, arbitrary , unreasonable, and unfair denial of
social assistance to persons who are legally entitled to receive it.

[87] In Khos a and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule
and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others10 the Constitutional

10 [2004] ZACC 11; 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) ; 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC) (“ Khosa ”) at paras 42 and 52 -3.
000-34
000-34
35
Court, dealing with the issue of reasonableness of the legislation governing the
SRD grant , stated the following:
“Equality is also a foundational value of the Constitution and informs constitutional
adjudication in the same way as life and dignity do. Equality in respect of access to
socio -economic righ ts is implicit in the reference to ‘everyone’ being entitled to have
access to such rights in s ection 27. Those who are unable to survive without social
assistance are equally desperate and equally in need of such assistance .
….
The right of access to social security, i ncluding social assistance, for those unable to
support themselves and their dependants in entrenched because as a society we value
human beings and want to ensure that people are afford ed their basic needs. A society
must seek to ensure that the basic nec essities of life are accessible to all it is to be a
society in which human dignity, freedom and equality are foundational.

It is necessary to differentiate between people and groups of people in society by
classification in order for the state to allocat e rights, duties, immunities, privileges,
benefits or even disadvantages and to provide efficient and effective delivery of social
services. However, those classifications must satisfy the constitutional requirement of
‘reasonableness’ in section 27(2). In this case, the state has chosen to differentiate
between citizens and no n-citize ns. That differentiation, if it is to pass constitutional
muster, mus t not be arbitrary or irrational nor must it manifest a naked preference.
There must be a rati onal connection between that differentiating law and the legitimate
gove rnment purpose it is designed to achieve. A differentiating law or action which
does not meet these standards will be in violation of s ection 9(1) and s ection 27(2) of
the Constitution. ”

Temporary Measure of the SRD grant

[88] The SRD grant was initially launched to alleviate hunger for people who were
unemployed due to the Covid -19 pandemic . It was promulgated under the
Disaster Management Act . In 2022 the SRD grant was promulgated and fell
within the parameters of the Social Assistance Act in terms of section 13. It is
now available to provide temporary assistance to person s who may qualify for
000-35
000-35
36
the social relief of distress if such person s are between the ages of 18 –59 and are
of insufficient means and unable to support themsel ves and their dependants.

[89] The SRD grant has been extended on numerous occasions under the
Disaster Management Act and has since been promulgated under the S AA to be
in line with other social grants. I hold the view that SRD grant has the same legal
status as the other social grants which are provided for by the SAA and is not a
temporary measure as contended by the respondents. The SRD grant provides
social assistance to person s who are of working -age and who are with
insufficient means to support themselves and their families and th erefore cannot
be said to be temporary in a country wherein almost thirty percent (30 %) of the
population is unemployed.

[90] Initially the SRD grant was promulgated under the Disaster Management Act to
offer social assistance to people during the Covid -19 pandemic – hence it was
named Covid -19 Social Relief of Distress . The purpose at the time was to assist
people who were unemployed due to the pandemi c. However, it has now been
promulgated under the SAA to assist any person between the ages of 18–
59 who is with insufficient means to support himself or his dependents and who
meet s the criteria as set out in the SAA .

[91] The SRD grant is permanent in that it is promulgated under the SAA and is
available to persons who are eligible and meet the criteria of people who are of
insufficient means and who are unable to support themselves and their
dependants . I am of the respectful view therefore that, although the SRD grant
offers temporary re lief to person s who qualif y in terms of the set criteria , it has
the same legal status as the other social grants promulgated under the SAA . I
hold the view therefore that it is permanent.

[92] It is accepted that the intention of parliament can only be discerned from
legislation which is promulgated and not from public statements made by the
000-36
000-36
37
President of the Republic or Ministers and politicians. However, it is these
statements which model the direction which parliament will follow. I accept that
the government has plans to develop a model to replace the SRD grant .
Develop ing any model to improve and replace the SRD grant does not mean it
is not permanent, but it is merely to improve on its administration and
management . However, the purpose remains the same, to assist those with
insufficient means to support themselves and their dependants .

Procedural Safeguards

[93] I agree with the respondents that where public money is used to provide benefits
to members of the population, procedural safeguards are necessary and should
be applied to ensure that only those w ho are entitled to the ben efits access it.
However, the procedural safeguards must be reasonable and fair . The safeguards
must be put in place to serve the purpose of the SAA to provide social relief of
distress to persons who are of insufficient means and not with ulterior purpose
and or to deliberately exclude persons who are entitled to receive the grant
benefit.

[94] The purpose of the safeguards should be to prevent the abuse of the SRD grant
and to prevent waste, fraud and erroneous payments and payment to persons who
fall outside the category of the persons entitled t o receive the benefits. It cannot
be right to promulgate regulations with safeguards that are intended to reduce
the number of people who are eligible for the SRD grant or to reduce and or limit
spending on the SRD grant due to budgetary constraints . The safeguards must be
reasonable and fair.

[95] The SRD grant is not temporary and although it is on a large scale, it has the
same legal standing as the other grants in the SAA . Thus, there is absolutely no
reason for it to be treated differently from the other grants. There is no reasonable
justification to subject its potential beneficiaries , who are mainly poor and
000-37
000-37
38
vulnerable members of society , to a solely online application process . I agree
with the applicants that the m ajority of people with insufficient means to support
themselves and their dependants do not h ave smart phones nor access to
computers and the internet .

[96] In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Resilient Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others11 the
Supreme Court of Appeal stated the following :
“. . .When a decision is sought to be reviewed on the basis of irrationality, the test of
rationality is concerned with the evaluation of the relationship between the means
employed and the ends to be achieved. The evaluation of the relationship seeks to
determine, not whether there are means that can achieve the same purpose better than
those chosen, but whether the means employed are rationally related to the purpose for
which the power was conferred.
A rationality review also determines whether the process leading up to the decision and
the decision itself are rational. The Constitutional Court cautioned that it should not be
lost from sight that where there is an overlap between the reasonableness and rationality
evaluations one is nevertheless dealing with discrete concepts. In Albutt v Centre for
the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others the following was stated:
‘The executive has a wide discretion in selecting the means to achieve its
constitutionally permissible objectives. Courts may not interfere with the means
selected simply because they do not like them, or because there are other more
appropriate means that could have been selected. But, where the decision is challenged
on the groun ds of rationality, courts are obliged to examine the means selected to
determine whether they are rationally related to the objective sought to be achieved.
What must be stressed is that the purpose of the enquiry is to determine not whether
there are othe r means that could have been used, but whether the means selected are
rationally related to the objective sought to be achieved. And if, objectively speaking,
they are not, they fall short of the standard demanded by the Constitution. ’”





11 [2020] ZASCA 185; 2021 (3) SA 47 (SCA) at paras 85 -6.
000-38
000-38
39
The Online Application

[97] There is no merit in the contention by the respondents that the online application
process is fast and easy and therefore it is reasonable for government not to
deploy resources for retrofitting SASSA offices to provide for an inefficient
application process which it seeks to phase out in respect of all grants over time.
There are eligible person s for the SRD grant who live in rural areas and who do
not have access to smart phones and who are not computer literate. It is irrelevant
that their Chief may have a smart phone and can lend it to them to make the
online application for the SRD grant. The people in far flung areas may
experience network problems which would prevent them from logging on to the
online platform.

[98] There is no reason why the SRD grant beneficiaries should not be provided with
an alternative method of applying for the grant like the other grants’
beneficiaries. I am of the respectful view therefore that the online only
application has the result of no t meeting the purpose of the SAA and is excluding
people with insufficient means who are unable to support themselves and their
dependants . The ulterior purpose of the online application has the result of
reducing the uptake of SRD grant beneficiaries .

[99] The online application process does not permit an applicant for the SRD grant to
upload any other or additional information except what is required by the
application. Once the applicant has completed the online application process,
SASSA will rely on that information even through the appeal process. Although
the respondents have conceded that the appeal process is not helpful and needs
to be broaden ed to accommodate oth er information, the delay between the time
of lodging the application and the appeal process would be inordinate and would
be to the disadvantage of the SRD grant applicant.

000-39
000-39
40
[100] It was stated in Khosa that there is nothing wrong in differentiating between
people and groups of people in society by classification in order for the State to
allocate rights, but that the classification must be reasonable if it is to pass the
constitutional muster. It must no t be arbitrary or irrational nor must it manifest a
clear preference of one group to the other otherwise it will offend s ections 9 and
27 of the Constitution. Put differently, there must reasonable justification for the
differentiation to pass the constitu tional muster.

[101] In Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 12 the Constitutional
Court stated the following:

“When challenged as to its policies relating to social and economic rights, the
government agency must explain why the policy is reasonable. Government must
disclose what it has done to formulate the policy: its investigation and research, the
alternatives considered, and the reasons why the option underlying the policy was
selected. The Constitution does not require government to b e held to an impossible
standard of perfection. Nor does it require courts to take over the tasks that in a
democracy should properly be reserved for the democratic arms of government. Simply
put, through the institution of the courts, government can be ca lled upon to account to
citizens for its decisions. This understanding of social and economic rights litigation
accords with the founding values of our Constitution and, in particular, the principles
that government should be responsive, accountable and op en.

Not only must government show that the policy it has selected is reasonable, it must
show that the policy is being reconsidered consistent with the obligation to
'progressively realise' social and economic rights in mind. A policy that is set in stone
and never revisited is unlikely to be a policy that will result in the progressive
realisation of rights consistently with the obligations imposed by the social and
economic rights in our Constitution.

This case illustrates how litigation concerning soci al and economic rights can exact a
detailed accounting from government and, in doing so, impact beneficially on the
policy -making process. The applicants , in argument , rued the fact that the City had

12 [2009] ZACC 8; 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) ; 2010 (3) BCLR 239 (CC) at paras 161 -3.
000-40
000-40
41
continually amended its policies during the course of th e litigation. In fact, that
consequence of the litigation (if such it was) was beneficial. Having to explain why the
Free Basic Water Policy was reasonable shone a bright, cold light on the policy that
undoubtedly revealed flaws. The continual revision of the policy in the ensuing years
has improved the policy in a manner entirely consistent with an obligation of
progressive realisation. ”

[102] The contention by the respondents that the applicants’ choice of the Rule 6
process instead of the Rule 53 procedure prevented them the opportunity to
furnish reasons for the decisions taken to implement the differentiation between
the groups of grant benefic iaries is misplaced. It is on record that, in these
proceedings, the respondents filed their answering papers out of time due to the
reason that they were consulting the relevant departments and personnel to obtain
the correct information to answer the case of the applicants.

[103] Further, by agreement between the parties, the respondents have not only filed
answering aff idavits but additional supplementary affidavits to answer to the
case of the applicants. It is my considered view therefore that the respondents
had ample opportunity to take the Court into its confidence and furnish whatever
reasons and justification it had and whatever factors were taken into
consideration when the decision was made to implement the differentiation
between the groups of the grant beneficiaries and especially to treat the SRD
grant beneficiaries differently from the others.

[104] Given tha t the government has already started a pilot project to explore an
alternative to the online process, the respondents ’ contention that it is not
necessary for government to incur more costs to set up alternatives to the online
process which is working well is unmeritorious. It is unreasonable and un fair for
the respondents to differentiate between the beneficiaries of the SRD grant and
the other grants by making it impossible for the SRD grant applicants to apply
in a physical environment where they can receive assistance and guidance from
the officials of SASSA .
000-41
000-41
42

Meaning of Income or Financial Support

[105] Regulation 2 provides that a person in need of temporary assistance, may qualify
for the social relief of distress if he or she is a person with insufficient means.
Regulation 1 defines the term “insufficient means ” to mean that a person is not
in receipt of income or financial support. It is therefore necessary to determine
the meaning of the term income or financial support in relation to SAA and its
regulations .

[106] It is trite that in determining whether legislation or a regulation is reasonable,
regard must be had to the words use d in the statute, the context in which they
were used , and the purpose of the statute. In Khosa , the Court went on to say that
it is also necessary to consider the impact that the said or relevant statute has on
other intersecti ng rights including equality rights entrenched in section 9 which
are also directly impacted.

[107] In Independent Institut e of Education (Pty) L td v KwaZulu -Natal Law Society
and Others13 the Constitutional Court again had the opportunity to address the
issue of interpretation of a statute and stated the following:

“It would be a woeful misrepresentation of the true character of our constitutional
democracy to resolve any legal issue of consequence without due deference to the
pre-eminent or overarching role o f our Constitution.

The interpretive exercise is no exception. For, section 39(2) of the Constitution dictates
that ‘when interpreting any legislation … every court, tribunal, or forum must promote
the spirit, purpose and objects of the Bill of Rights’. M eaning, every opportunity courts
have to interpret legislation, must be seen and utilised as a platform for the promotion
of the Bill of Rights by infusing its central purpose into the very essence of the
legislation itself.”

13 [2019] ZACC 47 ; 2020 (2) SA 325 (CC); 2020 (4) BCLR 495 at paras 1 -2.
000-42
000-42
43

[108] The Court continued and state d the following:

“To concretise this approach, the following must never be lost sight of. First, a special
meaning ascribed to a word or phrase in a statue ordinarily applies to that statute alone.
Second, even in instances where that statute applies, the context might dictate that the
special meaning be departed from. Third, where the application of the definition, even
where the same statute in which it is located applies, would give rise to an injustice or
incongruity or absurdity that is at odds with t he purpose of the statute, then the defined
meaning would be inappropriate for use and should therefore be ignored. Fourth, a
definition of a word in the one statute does not automatically or compulsorily apply to
the same word in another statute. Fifth, a word or phrase is to be given its ordinary
meaning unless it is defined in the statute where it is located. Sixth, where one of the
meanings that could be given to a word or expression in a statute, without straining the
language, ‘promotes the spirit, pu rport and objects of the Bill of Rights’, then that is
the meaning to be adopted even if it is at odds with any other meaning in other statutes.14

….

It is a well -established canon of statutory construction that ‘every part of a statute
should be construe d so as to be consistent, so far as possible, with every other part of
that statu te, and with every other unrepealed statute enacted by the Legislature’.
Statutes dealing with the same subject matter, or which are in pari materia , should be
construed toget her and harmoniously. This imperative has the effect of harmonising
conflicts and differences between statutes. The canon derives its force from the
presumption that the Legislature is consistent with itself. In other words, that the
Legislature knows and has in mind the existing law when it passes new legislation, and
frames new legislation with reference to the existing law. Statutes relating to the same
subject matter should be read together because they should be seen as part of a single
harmonious lega l system.15

….


14 Id at para 18.
15 Id at para 38.
000-43
000-43
44
The canon is consistent with a contextual approach to statutory interpretation. It is now
trite that courts must properly contextualise statutory provisions when ascribing
meaning to the words used therein. While maintaining that word shoul d generally be
given their ordinary grammatical meaning, this Court has long recognised that a
contextual and purposive must be applied to statutory interpretation. Courts must have
due regard to the context in which the words appear, even where ‘the words to be
construed are clear and unambiguous’.

This Court has taken a broad approach to contextualising legislative provisions having
regard to both the internal and external context in statutory interpretation. A contextual
approach requires that legislati ve provisions are interpreted in light of the text of the
legislation as a whole (internal context). This Court has also recognised that context
include s, amongst others, the mischief which the legislation aims to address, the social
and historical backgro und of the legislation, and, most pertinently for the purposes of
this, other legislation (external context). That a contextual approach mandates
consideration of other legislation is clearly demonstrated in Shaik . In Shaik , this Court
considered context t o be ‘all -important’ in the interpretative exercise. The context to
which the Court had regard included the ‘well -established rules of criminal procedure
and evidence ’ and, in particular, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.”16

[109] Most recently in University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological
Seminary and Another17 the Constitutional Court dealt with the principles of
interpretation of documents and stated the following:

“This approach to interpretation requires that ‘from the outset one co nsiders the context
and the language together, with neither predominating over the other’. In Chisuse ,
although speaking in the context of statutory interpretation, this Court held that this
‘now settled’ approach to interpretation, is a ‘unitary’ exercise . This means that
interpretation is to be approached holistically: simultaneously considering the text,
context and purpose.

The approach in Endumeni ‘updated’ the position, which was that context could be
resorted to if there was ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text. The Supreme Court of
Appeal has explicitly pointed out in cases subsequent to Endumeni that context and

16 Id at paras 41 -2.
17 [2021] ZACC 13; 2021 (6) SA 1 (CC); 2021 (8) BCLR 807 (CC) at paras 65-6.
000-44
000-44
45
purpose must be taken into a ccount as a matter of course, whether or not the words
used in the contract are ambiguous. A court interpreting a contract has to, from the
onset, consider the contract’s factual matrix, its purpose, the circumstances leading up
to its conclusion, and the knowledge at the time of those who negotiated and produced
the contract”.

[110] Contextually, the language used in regulation 1 and 2 is plain and unambiguous.
Reference to a person with insufficient means as a person who is not in receipt
of income clearly means a person who does not receive regular payment or
reward. The purpose of the definition in regulation 1 is to differentiate between
persons who regularly receive money which is sufficient to support themselves
and their dependants and those who do not receive an income. Income in the
context of the SAA means regular income as reward or compensation in
exchange for work or from investments.

[111] In the context of the regulations and the SAA, a person who receives an income
which is sufficient for his or her support and for his or her dependants, is rendered
ineligible to qualify to receive the social relief of distress grant. I hold the view
therefore that the word “ income” does not encompass all moneys received by an
applicant for the SRD grant including a once -off or ad hoc payment. Put in
another way, income means money received on a regular basis and if it is above
the threshold of R624, it precludes the applicant from qualifying to be a
beneficiary of the SRD grant.

[112] I agree with the applicants that the interpretation ascribed to “income ” by the
respondents is narrow and rigid as it includes all moneys received by the person
who is applying for the SRD grant even moneys that such person is holding or
receiving on behalf of others. The intention of the leg islator is plain and clear in
that the SRD grant is available to persons who need temporary assistance and are
of insufficient means in that they are unable to support themselves and their
families. It is part of the formulation of a criterion for qualific ation to receive the
000-45
000-45
46
SRD grant and is not intended to exclude persons who really need and are
entitled to receive the SRD grant.

[113] It should be recalled that it does not necessarily mean that if a person receives a
regular income is automatically excluded from qualifying to receive the SRD
grant. It is one of the criteria used for the eligibility but will only disqualify a
person from receiving the SRD grant if his or her income exceeds the set
qualifying threshold of R624. That is the purpose of the regulation, to disqualify
people from receiving the SRD grant when they are not entitled thereto if they
receive an income which exceeds the threshold set by the regulations to be R624.

[114] It should be remembered that the SRD grant was initially promulgated under the
Disaster Management Act to provide social relief of distress to adults who were
unemployed as a result of the Covid -19 pandemic . Income in relation to the
SRD grant should be interpreted to mean income from work, formal or informal,
or investments. The purpose of the SRD grant was to alleviate the hunger for
persons who were not receiving any income because they were unemployed as a
result of the pandemic. I hold the view therefore that income means money
received on a regular basis in exchange for work done or from investments.

[115] The ordinary meaning of “financial support ” in the context of the SAA and the
regulations is for a pers on being regularly supported financially to meet his or
her basic needs. Section 27 of the Constitution creates a right to social security
including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support
themselves and their dependants. At the same time, it creates an obligation on
the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures within its resources
to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights .

[116] In the context of s ection 27, the obligation is on the State to achiev e the
progressive realisation of each right within its available resources and not on any
individual. It is my respectful view therefore that financial support in the context
000-46
000-46
47
of the SAA means financial support which the person has a right thereto. In other
words, financial support means that the person or the applicant for the SRD grant
would be excluded from receiving the grant if he is entitled to and receives
financial support from the State or from a person who is obliged and has a duty
to support that person but that does not include financial assistance which is
ad hoc or once -off.

[117] The regulations further provide that a person is not entitled to a social grant for
himself or herself and Covid -19 Social Relief of Distress simultaneously.
Further, that to qualify as a person with insufficient means, that person should
not be a resident in a government -funded or subsidised institution. It is therefore
self-evident that financial support only means financial support received by a
person who is entitled to it from a person who is obliged to and has a duty to
provide that financial support for the person to be able to meet his or her basic
needs and does not include moneys which are received irregularly.

[118] The respondents contend that if their narrow interpret ation of the word “income ”
and ‘financial support ” is not accepted, then the value of the grant would increase
up to R60 billion per year. As indicated above, the regulations should not be
promulgated only to further the purpose of the SRD grant and the SAA , but also
to be in line with the Constitution. The interpretation ascribe d by the respondents
to “income ” and “financial support ” has the result of excluding and is intended
to reduce the uptake of deserving benefi ciaries of the SRD grant in order to save
money – thus it offends s ection 27 of the Constitution and is therefore
unreasonable and unlawful .

Question s in the Online Application

[119] As one of the measure s to determine whether a person receives an income or
financial support, an SRD grant applicant is faced with the following questions
in the online application form:
000-47
000-47
48
“1. How do you usually obtain your basic necessities or wh ere do you get money
to support yourself if there is not R350 grant?
2. How much money did you receive in the last month , including gifts, assistance
from anyone, donations, dividends , earnings from formal or informal
employment, but excluding the R350 grant.”

[120] I agree with the respondents that there is nothing wrong with thes e questions
since they require information to determine whether the SR D grant applicant
does receive any income or financial support besides the R350 SRD grant.
Bearing in mind the interpretation ascribed to income and financial support in
the context of the SAA as indicated above, it cannot be said that these questions
are not legitimate and sensible. The questions are intended to elicit information
from the applicant of the SRD grant to determine whether he or she receives an
income or financial support in the context of the SAA.

[121] Undoub tedly, the information required by the questions would include all
moneys received by the SRD grant applicant during th at period but moneys
which are not determined as income or financial support will be excluded in
terms of the interpretation ascribed to income and financial support . The
purposive interpretation of income and financial support must be in line with the
SAA and the Constitution in that i t promote s the spirit, purport and objects of
the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

[122] Section 27 provides that everyone has the right to access social security including
appropriate social assistance if they are unable to support themselves and their
dependants. Everyone purposively interpreted means everyone who meets the
criteria set by the SAA and its regulations for social assistance is entitl ed to
receive it. It is immaterial that a member of that person’s family is assisting him
or her to obtain his basic necessities and that does not absolve the State from
performing its duty and meeting its obligations in terms of s ection 27(2).


000-48
000-48
49

Validation of Insufficient Means through Database Verification

[123] Regulation 3 provides for a process of validation of insufficient means which
entails the use and reliance o n both the government database s and the
bank account information of the applicant . Regulation 6A of the 2024
amendment regulations makes it compulsory for every applicant for the
SRD grant to have a bank account since it requires that an applicant must ensure
that SASSA has his or her correct banking details to enable the bank verificat ion
process and payment of the SRD grant .

[124] The use of the information from the government databases has been accepted by
the parties as unreliable since the se databases are not being updated regularly
with the latest information. People appear o n the Home Affairs , NSFAS, UIF
and SARS databases even when they are no longer active on that database. I t is
absurd for the respondents to place a duty on the applicants for the SRD grant to
update their details on the government databases. The government databases
belong to the government , and it is the responsibility of the government to always
update it . The inaccuracies of the databases verification process preclude many
people who are entitled to receive the SRD grant from receiving it.

[125] It is incomprehensible why the respondents would continue to use the
government databases verification process knowing that it provides inaccurate
information which has the result of excluding eligible applicants from receiving
the SRD grant. There is uncontroverted evidence by the grant beneficiaries who
filed supporting affidavits that an applicant would be precluded from receiving
the SRD grant since h is or he r name appears on the UIF, Home Affairs , NSFAS,
or SARS database without SASSA going through a process of verifying the
correctness of the information and the reason s why an appli cant’s n ame appears
on government databases. The databases verification process is therefore
000-49
000-49
50
unreasonable and unfair and is used with an ulterior purpose of excluding eligible
SRD grant applicants from receiving it.

Bank Verification

[126] The bank verification process is intended to verify with an applicant’s bank
whether he or she has insufficient means and thus eligible for the SRD grant. The
bank verification process has its own deficiencies as well in that it only considers
money deposited into the bank account of the applicant. It does not consider
whether the money was deposited for a different purpose and regards all the
moneys deposited into an applicant’s bank account as income. If the mone ys
deposited into the bank account of an applicant for that month exceeds the set
qualifying threshold of R624, then that applicant will be excluded from receiving
the grant.

[127] I am in agree ment with the respondents’ contention that regard must be had to
the fact that the provision of social grants is massive in scale and affects millions
of recipients and that since it involves billions of Rands in a depressed economy,
there is a huge risk of abuse. However, it does not mean the respondents should
formulate regulations as a barrier to exclude deserving and eligible applicants to
access the SRD grant. It is not justif ied and is in fact unreasonable and unlawful
for the State to pass legislation and regulations which are intended to preclude
eligible SRD grant applicants in order to save on the expenditure on the
SRD grant.

[128] The bank verification process doe s not permit any consideration for the purpose
for which moneys were deposited in an applicant ’s account. The new regulation
makes it compulsory fo r SASSA to ascertain the details of any applicants’ bank
account – thus every SRD grant applicant is presumed to and must have a bank
account. It ignores the fact that SASSA uses other methods of payment such as
000-50
000-50
51
the ‘cash send’ which is not linked to a bank account but to a cell phone selected
by the applicant.

[129] I disagree with the respondents that the bank verification process is an invaluable
reform as no other method could as reliably provide proof of individual income
and financial suppor t. It has correctly been branded a blunt instrument and
inhumane since it does not consider that some grant applicants do not have bank
accounts and /or share their bank accounts with other members of the family and
that not all moneys deposited in an applicant’s bank account are intended for his
or her financial support or income.

[130] It is unfathomable why the respondent would justify an irrational and arbitra ry
verification procedure which excludes people who are eligible and entitled to
access the SRD grant. I hold the view therefore that the persistence to use the
bank verification process is intended to reduce the number of beneficiaries and ,
by extension , to reduce the cost of the SRD grant and is therefore not in line with
the purpose of the SAA . The use of the bank verification process , which is fully
automated , is unfair and unreasonable and offends the provisions of s ection 9
and s ection 27 of the Constitution.

Resolution of Conflict

[131] It is accepted that a presumption exists that where an act of parliam ent confers
an administrative power, that power will be exercised in a manner which is fair
in all the circumstances. However, it is equally impermissible to afford
administrative offici als with unfettered discretion where constitu tional rights are
at stake. The regulation permits the deployment of the databases and bank
verification but do es not provide a mechanism for how to resolve a conflict in
information provided by both verification process es except t o say that the bank
verification process shall take precedent over the databases verification process.

000-51
000-51
52
[132] Both the databases and bank verification process es have been found to contain
inaccuracies which have the result of excluding eligible SRD grant applicants. I
can find no reasons why the resolution of the conflict between the two
verification processes is left in the hands of the officials – thus giving them
unfettered discretion in the processes. The preference of the bank verification
process over the databases verification on the basis that the latter reflects the
most accurate financial position of the SRD applicants is flawed . I say so because
the bank verification process has been correctly described by SASSA in its
reports as a blunt instrument and inhuman.

Payments Subject to Availability of Funds

[133] The applicants argue that regulation 5(3)(a) which provides for payment of the
SRD grant subject to funds being available , which is limited to the amount
appropriated for the 2024/2025 financial year to the vote of social development
for social relief of distress is irrational and arbitrary. This is so, say the
applicants, be cause if the money runs out , the eligible and successful applicants
for the SRD grant would not receive payment .

[134] It is on record that the number of persons who fall within the category of persons
who are with insufficient means is more than 18.3 million. At present the persons
who receive the SRD grant are not more than 10.5 million . It has been argued by
the respondents that if the interpretation of income and financial support were to
exclude other payments received by the applicant for the SRD grant, th e value
of the grant would increase by up to R60 billion a year. To circumvent this
eventuality, the respondents have put in place regulations which a re a barrier to
eligible SRD grant applicants.

[135] The overarching argument of the respondents is that it is speculative that eligible
SRD grant applicants will not receive their grant benefit once the money
allocated for the SRD grant runs out since the budget has historically not been
000-52
000-52
53
exceeded. The respondents say the logical outcome when money appropria ted
for the social relief of distress runs out is that there would be no payment of the
SRD grant, and that this is not irrational or arbitrary but the reality of the
situation.

[136] I disagree with the respondents. It may not have occurred thus far that the money
runs out because of the barriers put in place to exclude eligible
SRD grant applicants. However, the threat to the rights of eligible and successful
SRD grant beneficiaries remains in that should the funds as allocated be depleted,
there will be no payment of the SRD grant . Once again, there is no reasonable
explanation proffered by the respondents for arriving at such a decision . It is no
defence to say that it is highly speculative for historically the budget has never
been exceeded and that the bu dget was previously underspent.

[137] I accept that the budget has never been exceeded in the history of the SRD grant
but the threat to limit payment of the grant to what has been allocated for that
particular financial year is a serious threat to the rights of people as provided for
in section 27 of the Constitution. Further, the threat not to pay persons who are
successful applicants of the SRD grant when the limit is reached is another form
of differentiation of the SRD grant beneficiaries from the other grant
beneficiaries and there is no reasonable explanation for such differentiation. The
decision to promulgate this regulation is therefore unfair , unreasonable and
unjust and is in breach of the Constitution.

[138] It is uncon scionable for g overnment to accept that the number of people who are
with insufficient means to support themselves and their dependants is more than
18.3 million but only budgets to provide for 10.5 million. This is so because the
regulations have placed b arriers to exclude the eligible applicants from access ing
the SRD grant . The under spending of the budget by the SASSA in the previous
financial years is not because there are no eligible persons to meet the estimated
000-53
000-53
54
number, but it is because of the exclusion ary barriers put in place by the
regulations.

[139] In City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties
39 (Pty) Ltd and Another 18 the Constitutional Court stated the following:

“The City provided information relating specifically to its housing budget, but did not
provide information relating to its budget situation in general. We do not know exactly
what the City's overall financial position is. This Court's determination of the
reasonableness of measures within available resources cannot be restricted by
budgetary and other decisions that may well have resulted from a mistaken
understanding of constitutional or statutory obligations. In other words, it is not good
enough for the City to state that it has not budgeted for something, if it should indeed
have planned and budgeted for it in the fulfilment of its obligations .”

[140] Given that the government is aware of the number of people living below the
food poverty line and the number of people eligible to receive the SRD grant due
to them being unemployed or if employed , earn a salary which is below the
means threshold of R624 per month , and w hich equates to more than 18.3 million
people , it is unthinkable why the government and National Treasury in particular
should not plan and budget accordingly in order to fulfil its obligations in terms
of the Constitution . There is no rational basis for the government budgeting for
only 10.5 million successful applicants when the estimated number of people
who qualify for the SRD grant is more than 18.3 million .

Retrogressive Grant Value

[141] The SRD grant was introduced by government in May 2020 and the value thereof
was set at R350. It has since 1 April 2024 been increased by a sum of R20 to the
value of R370. The value of the SRD grant, according to the applicants, has not
been progressively realised . The respondents do not dispute that the value of the

18 [2011] ZACC 33; 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC) ; 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC) at para 74 .
000-54
000-54
55
grant is now less than when it was introduced but contend that the obligation to
increase the SRD grant is dependent on the availability of resources.
Furthermore, it is the Executive function to determine the prio rities when it
comes to matters of social assistance.

[142] I agree with both the applicants and the respondents that the amount of R3 50 in
May 2020 does not have the same value in 2024 – it has in fact decreased in
value. In terms of s ection 27(2), the government is obliged to progressively
realise the value of the SRD grant, like other social grants on which the
government has been effecting increases in the past four year s. The increase of
the value by R20 to R370 does not go far enough to meet the requirements of
progressive realisation for it still put s the value of SRD grant far below the
national food pov erty line .

[143] I am mindful of the principle of judicial deference. Since the issue to increase
the value of the SRD grant falls within the domain of the Executive, it is not for
this Court to prescribe to the Executive what to do . However, the Court will
continue to perform its judicial function , but it is necessary to exercise some
restraint for the Court is not empowered nor is it an expert in the issues of
budgeting .

[144] In Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
and Others19 where the Constitutional Court quoted the follow ing:

“In the SCA Schutz JA held that this was a case which calls for judicial deference. In
explaining deference, he cited with approval Professor Hoexter's account as follows:

'[A] judicial willingness to appreciate the legitimate and
constitutionally -ordained province of administrative agencies; to admit the
expertise of those agencies in policy -laden or polycentric issues; to accord their

19 [2004] ZACC 15; 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) ; 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC) at para 46.
000-55
000-55
56
interpretation s of fact and law due respect; and to be sensitive in general to the
interests legitimately pursued by admin istrative bodies and the practical and
financial constraints under which they operate. This type of deference is
perfectly consistent with a concern for individual rights and a refusal to tolerate
corruption and maladministration. It ought to be shaped not by an
unwillingness to scrutinise administrative action, but by a careful weighing up
of the need for - and the consequences of - judicial intervention. Above all, it
ought to be shaped by a conscious determination not to usurp the functions of
administra tive agencies; not to cross over from review to appeal.'
Schutz JA continues to say that ' [j]udicial deference does not imply judicial timidity or
an unreadiness to perform the judicial function'. I agree. The use of the word 'deference'
may give rise to misunderstanding as to the true function of a review court. This can
be avoided if it is realised that the need for courts to treat decision -makers with
appropriate deference or respect flows not fr om judicial courtesy or etiquette but from
the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of powers itself .”

[145] The principle of the separation of powers was emphasi sed in Trenco n
Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of Sou th Africa
Ltd and Another20where the Constitutional Court stated the following:

“[G]iven the doctrine of separation of powers, in conducting this enquiry there are
certain factors that should inevitably hold greater weight. The first is whether a court
is in as good a position as the administrator to make the decision. The second is whether
the decision of an administrator is a foregone conclusion. These two factors must be
considered cumulatively. Thereafter, a court should still consider other relevant fa ctors.
These may include delay, bias or the incompetence of an administrator. The ultimate
consideration is whether a substitution order is just and equitable. This will involve a
consideration of fairness to all implicated parties.”

[146] It is on record that the other social grants have been enjoying increases over the
years except for the SRD grant which has only recently been increased by R20
to the value of R370. Although the increase has been effected, there is no

20 [2015] ZACC 22; 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC); 2015 (10) BCLR 1199 (CC) at para 47. Quoted with approval in
e.tv (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others [2022] ZACC 22;
2023 (3) SA 1 (CC); 2022 (9) BCLR 1055.
000-56
000-56
57
explanation given as to why the SRD grant has been increased ; where did the
money come from since it was said it is unaffordable to increase same ; and how
was the increase of R20 determined . Moreover, there is no explanation given , as
was highli ghted above, why there is a differenti ation between the SRD grant and
the other social grant s when they are all promulgated under the same SAA.

[147] There is no merit in the respondents ’ contention that there has been progressi ve
realisati on in the SRD grant since its introduction in 2020 in that there was an
increase in the means threshold amount from R595 to R624 and recently the
SRD grant was increased by R20 to R370. According to the statistics , the
food pover ty line for 2023 was R760 and the SRD grant remained at R350 at the
time with the means threshold being R624. Even the means threshold amount is
far below the food poverty line for 2023 let alone 2024. Therefore, there is no
meaningful progressive realisation of the SRD grant, and this is in breach of the
provisions of s ection 27 of the Constitution.

[148] It should be recalled that the R20 increase on the SRD grant was only
implemented mid -stream during 2024 which is more than four years after it was
introduced. Although the increase of R20 was implemented after the SASSA and
the Minister had filed their answering affidavits, the respondents did not find it
necessary to file a further affidavit and explain the reasons for such an increase
and where the money came from sin ce it was said it was unaffordable to effect
any increase on the SRD grant nor did the respondents furnish a detailed plan as
to what is the way forward to align the SRD grant with the other grants in order
for it to receive increases every year.

[149] The income threshold amount of R624 was implemented in August 202 2 but has
now decreased in value when inflation is taken into account. I do no t understand
the respondents to be contend ing that the income threshold is set at a level which
ensures that people who are unable to support themselves and their dependants
receive the SRD grant or that it meet s the constitutional standard . The means
000-57
000-57
58
qualifying threshold is also not linked to any objective measure of income such
as the food poverty line. There is no re ason proffered by the respondents why
the means threshold is no longer linked to the food poverty line as it was init ially
linked to the 2021 food poverty line.

[150] There is no explanation why both the SRD grant and the means threshold are not
linked to measures such as the food poverty line although the purpose of the
SRD grant is to alleviate hunger and poverty in society. The respondents do not
deny that the SRD grant and the means threshold are worth less than when they
were introduced . The ineluctabl e conclusion is therefore that , by allowing the
retrogression of value of both the SRD grant and the means threshold ,
government ’s decision to do so is irrational , arbitrary and in breach of its
obligations in terms of section 27(2) of the Constitution .

[151] To avoid infringement of the doctrine of separation of powers, this Court is
unwilling to venture into the terrain reserved for the administrative branch of
government. However, it is necessary for the respondents to proffer some
explanation as to why the SRD grant and the means threshold have not been
progressively realised as provided for in s ection 27(2) of the Constitution. As
much as the Constitution provides that the government must take reaso nable
legislative and other measures within its available resources to achieve the
progressive realis ation of rights , it is not sufficient for the respondents to only
say that it is unaffordable .

[152] The range of potential costs for the increase of the SRD grant value and the
means threshold has been a highly speculative calculation. The respondents have
not demonstrated what the additional costs would be should the SRD grant and
the means threshold be increased except to say that it is unaffordable and that , if
the interpretation of “income ” or “financial support ” exclud es moneys received
by the SRD grant applicant s for other purposes, then the SRD grant payment
would increase to R60 billion per annum .
000-58
000-58
59
[153] In Khosa , the Court stated the following:

“There is thus no clear evidence to show what the additional cost of providing social
grants to aged and disabled permanent residents would be. Taking into account certain
assumptions relating to the composition of the groups and numbers of dependants,
Mr Kruger con cludes that the additional annual cost of including permanent residents
in grants in terms of s ection s 3, 4 and 4B could range between R243 million and
R672 million. The possible range demonstrates the speculative nature of the
calculations, but even if th ey are taken as providing the best guide of what the cost may
be, they do not support the contention that there will be a huge cost in making provision
for permanent residents. Approximately one fifth of the projected expenditure is in
respect of child gra nts and the unconstitutionality of the citizenship requirement in that
section of the Act has already been conceded by the respondents. The remainder
reflects an increase of less than 2% on the present cost of social grants
(currently R26.2 billion) even o n the higher estimate. Bearing in mind that it is
anticipated that the expenditure on grants will, in any event, increase by a further
R18.4 billion over the next three years without making provision for permanent
residents, the cost of including permanent residents in the system will be only a small
proportion of the total cost. ”21

Non-Payment of Successful Grant Applicants

[154] It is common cause between the parties that quite a substantial number ranging
between 10% and 15% of successful SRD grant applicants do not receive their
grant payment every month . The respondents offer ed no defence for the
non-payment of the SRD grant to successful applicants except to say that the
system experienced some teething problems an d that some of the successful
applicants fa iled to furnish their correct banking information and
cell phone numbers. SASSA handed up a document which was meant to
demonstrate that there was improvement in the non -payment category of
successful applicants from more than a million to hundreds of thou sands
per month.

21 Khosa above n 12 at para 62.
000-59
000-59
60

[155] As indicated above, the Court admitted this document in to evidence although the
applicants objected thereto . The evidence provided by the document did not take
the matter any further for it confirmed that there was a serious issue of
non-payment of successful applicants which runs into hundreds of thousands in
number. However, the document did not provide any information with regard to
what SASSA was doing to address this problem as teething problems of the
system cannot be allowed to go o n for years. Without dictating what the
government should do to alleviate the problem , however, it should provide a plan
as to how it intends to resolve the issue of non-payment of successful applicants.

[156] In Ngalo v The South African Social Security Agency22 in dealing with the issue
of the failure to process an application of care dependency over a period of
two years, the Court stated the following :

“Treating human beings with dignity requires of the state to act in a reasonable manner
towards those claiming social security rights, such as the right to social grant.
Human dignity, as a fundamental constitutional value and a fundamental right
enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is an important catalyst to alleviate poverty of the
historically deprived . Hence Chaskalson J said in Soobramoney v Minister of Health,
KwaZulu - Natal :
“We live in a society in which there are great disparities in wealth. Millions of
people are living in deplorable conditions and in great poverty. There is a high
level of unemploy ment, inadequate social security and many do not have
access to clean water or to adequate health services. These conditions already
existed when the constitution was adopted and a commitment to address them
and to transform our society into one in which t here will be human dignity,
freedom and equality, lies at the heart of our new constitutional order. For as
long as these conditions continue to exist that aspiration will have a hollow
ring.”


22 [2013] 2 All SA 347 (ECM) at para 26.
000-60
000-60
61
[157] It should be remembered that the SRD grant is meant for the po or people and to
alleviate hunger. For this group of society t o not receive the grant timeously or
at all has dire consequences . Although this Court is restrained to enter the terrain
of the executive arm of government, in order to address the human indignity
being suffered by the succ essful SRD grant beneficiaries who do not receive their
payment, it finds it just and equitable for the government to develop a plan as to
how it intends to address the issues relating to non -payment of the SRD grant to
successful applicants.

[158] Although section 4 of the SAA provides that the Minister must, with the
concurrence of the Minister of Finance, make availabl e out of moneys
appropriated by Parliament , the social relief of distress grant, it does not
empower the Minister of Finance to encroach onto the terrain of the Minister to
make policy decisions and the regulations to harmonise the administration and
payment of the SRD grant. The concurrence of the Min ister of Finance is only
required by the SAA in matters that involves the finance and budget to enable
the Ministry and its functionary to execute its mandate.

[159] In Affordable Medicine Trust and Another v Minister of Health and Another23
the Constitutional Court stated the following regarding the power of
functionaries:

“The exercise of public power must therefore comply with the Constitution, which is
the supreme law, and the doctrine of legality, which is part of that law. The doctrine of
legality, which is an incident of the rule of law, is one of the constitutional co ntrols
which the exercise of public power is regulated by the Constitution. It entails that both
the legislature and the executive ‘are constrained by the principle that they may exercise
no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by law.’ In this
sense the Constitution entrenches the principle of legality and provides the foundation
for the control of public power.” (Own emphasis .)

23 [2005] ZACC 3; 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC); 2005 (6) BCLR 529 (CC) at para 49 .

000-61
000-61
62

[160] I therefore agree with the applicants that it is only for the Minister to determine
matters of policy and promulgate the regulations and to develop any plan for the
proper and efficient administration and management and payment of the
SRD grant . The concurr ence of the Minister of Finance is required by the law
only when the budget is required in order to execut e the mandate of the DSD and
SASSA in relation to the SRD grant and all other grant s. The regulation does not
empower the Minister of Finance to prescribe to the Mi nister what regulations
to promulgate in order curb the uptake of the SRD grant applic ants to reduce
spending on the SRD grant.

[161] DSD and SASSA seem to be oblivious to the human suffering and indignation
caused by the deployment of regulations with barriers that preclude the eligible
SRD grant applicants from receiving it and the inefficient administration and
payment of the SRD grant to th e successful applicants. This is so because they
have totally abdicated their responsibilities in these proceedings in that they
failed to fully answer to the case of the applicants and left that responsibility to
the National Treasury on the pretext that the Minister of Finance has concurren t
authority in the case.

[162] The applicants argued that in terms of s ection 172 of the Constitution , the Court
has the power to grant a just, equitable and effective order when deciding a
constitutional matter in which i t declares law or conduct inconsistent with the
Constitution and thereby invalid to the extent of its inconsistency. Furthermore,
so it was contended, section 8 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act24
gives the courts a wide discretion to make any just and equitable order to remedy
unlawful administrative action .


24 3 of 2000 .
000-62
000-62
63
[163] In Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board , Eastern Cape25 the
Constitutional Court state d the following:
“It goes without saying that every improper performance of an administrative function
would implicate the Constitution and entitle the aggrieved party to appropriate relief. In
each case the remedy must fit the injury. The remedy must be fair to those affected by it
and yet vindicate effectively the right violated. It must be just and equitable in the light of
the facts, the implicated constitutional principles, if any, and the controlling law. It is
nonetheless appropriate to note that ordinarily a breach of administrative justice attracts
public law remedies and not private law re medies. The purpose of a public law remedy is
to pre -empt or correct or reverse an improper administrative function. In some instances
the remedy takes the form of an order to make or not to make a particular decision or an
order declaring rights or an inj unction to furnish reasons for an adverse decision.
Ultimately the purpose of a public remedy is to afford the prejudiced party administrative
justice, to advance efficient and effective public administration compelled by
constitutional precepts and at a b roader level, to entrench the rule of law .

[164] I do not understand the respondents to be saying that the structural relief sought
by the applicants should not be granted . I understand the respondents to be saying
that if the structural relief is granted, the Court should give sufficient time to
remedy the in justice cause by their conduct and the impugned regulations. The
respondents requested a time frame of about two years from the date of the order.
However, s ince this case involves the poorest of the poor and those who do not
know where their next meal will come from, I hold the view that two years would
be an inordinate period under the circumstances.

Costs

[165] There is no reason why the costs should not follow the result in this case .
However, I am not persuaded by the applicants that the appropriate scale for the
costs is the punitive Scale C.


25 [2006] ZACC 16; 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) ; 2007 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) at para 29.
000-63
000-63
64
Order

[166] In the result , the following order is made:

1. It is declared that Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations Relating to
COVID -19 Social Relief of Distress (GN3210 in GG46271 of
22 April 2022) introduced on 29 March 2023 (“the Regulations”) is
unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it provides for Social Relief
of Distress (“SRD”) grant applications to be lodged on an electronic
platform onl y.
2. To remedy the defect in Regulation 3(2), the words “ or at the offices of
the Agency” shall be read in after the words “on the electronic platform”.
3. It is declared that the word “income” in Regulation 1 means money
received on a regular basis from formal or informal employment, business
activities or investments.
4. It is declared that the words “financial support” in Regulation 1 means
money received on a regular basis which benefits the recipient, that does
not constitute income, and which the recipient ha s a legal right to receive .
5. Regulation 2(3)(c)(i) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent
that it makes provision for “checks against databases that may indicate
income or alternative financial assistance”.
6. Regulation 2(3)(c)(ii) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the
extent that it directs that SRD grant applicants’ applications are assessed
according to a proxy means test consisting of verification of insufficient
means with banks .
7. Regulation 6(c) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it precludes unsuccessful applicants for the SRD grant from relying on
new information or evidence in an appeal.
8. To remedy the defect in Regulation 6(c), the word “not” after the word
“may” is del eted from Regulation 6(c).
000-64
000-64
65
9. Regulation 5(3)(a) of the Regulations is unconstitutional and invalid to
the extent that it makes p ayments to beneficiaries of the SRD grant subject
to available funds and permits SASSA to withhold payment of the
SRD grant to SRD grant beneficiaries if available funds are depleted.
10. It is declared that SASSA’s failure to pay successful applicants of the
SRD grant, timeously or at all, is unconstitutional and unlawful
11. It is directed that the SASSA must investigate the cause of wides pread
delays in payments to successful SRD grant applicants and devise and
implement a plan to address those delays.
12. SASSA is directed to:
a. deliver the plan referred to in paragraph 1 1 to the parties and this
Court within four months of the date of this order; and
b. implement the plan without delay.
13. The applicants are entitled to re -enrol the matter, on duly supplemented
papers, to seek further relief in relation to the SASSA’s implementation
of paragraphs 1 1 or 12 above .
14. Regulat ion 2(5) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it sets the income threshold for insufficient means at R624 per person
per month.
15. Regulation 5(1) is declared unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that
it sets the monthly amount of the SRD grant at R370 per person.
16. It is declared that sections 27(1)(c) and (2) of the Constitution require
government to devise and implement a plan to address the retrogression
in the value of the SRD grant and income threshold, and progressively
increa se the value of the SRD grant in Regulation 5(1) and the value of
the income threshold prescribed in Regulation 2(5).
17. In devising the plan referred to in paragraph 16, the Minister of Social
Development, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, must:
a. in setting the income threshold to qualify for the SRD grant, give
due consideration to:
000-65
000-65
66
i. the right to social assistance in section 27(1)(c) of the
Constitution for people unable to support themselves,
and the need to provide the SRD grant to all persons
unable to support themselves;
ii. increases in inflation and the cost of living;
iii. objective income measures, including the N FPLs
published from time to time by Statistics South Africa;
and
iv. the need to ensure that no one living in poverty is
excluded from accessing the grant.
b. in setting the value of the SRD grant, giv e due consideration to:
i. the right to social assistance in section 27(1)(c) of the
Constitution for people unable to support themselves;
ii. the right to food in section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution
and the impact of the SRD grant in addressing hunger;
iii. the need to remedy the retrogression in the value of the
grant since May 2020;
iv. the real terms value of the grant, in light of inflation and
the cost of living; and
v. the value of the grant in relation to objective income
poverty measures, including the N FPLs published from
time to time by Statistics South Africa.
18. The Minister of Social Development is directed to:
a. deliver the plan referred to in paragraph 17 to the parties and this
Court within four months of the date of this order; and
b. implement the plan without delay.
19 The applicants are entitled to re -enrol the matter, on duly supplemented
papers, to seek further relief in relation to the Minister of Social
Development’s implementation of paragraph s 17 or 18 above.
000-66
000-66
68

Instructed by: State Attorney – Pretoria
Tel: 012 309 1575
pheMokoena@justice.gov.za

Date of Hearing: 29 and 30 October 2024


Date of Judgment: 23 January 2025


Delivered: This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose
name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on Case Li nes. The date of the order is
deemed to be the 23 January 2025.

000-68
000-68