![]() ![]() ![]() On affidavit as to why she should not be joined to the proceedings in Social Development (Minister Dlamini) was called upon to show In that judgment costs were reserved and the then Minister of This judgment deals with the issue of costs left open in Black Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ and Theron ![]() Oath and, if so, whether she should be prosecuted for perjury.ĬJ, Zondo DCJ, Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ, Public Prosecutions, to consider whether Minister Dlamini Referee: B M Ngoepe JP and this judgment to the National Director of In terms of section 38 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013: This Court is directed to forward a copy of the Inquiry Report Law in the application, including the costs of two counsel. Ordered to pay 20% of the costs of Black Sash Trust Olive Dlamini (Minister Dlamini) is, in her personal capacity, Trust and Freedom Under Law in the application, Minister liable for costs - Gross negligenceĪnd third respondents are to pay 80% of the costs of Black Sash Goliath AJ, Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ and Theron J. Mogoeng CJ, Zondo DCJ, Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Neutral citation: Black Sash Trust (Freedom Under Law Intervening) v Minister of For this purpose, the SASSA decision is briefly discussed with a view to setting the stage for the detailed analysis of the issues.Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law Intervening) (CCT48/17) Z(12) BCLR 1472 (CC) (27 September 2018) It would however, be premature to embark on such detailed discussion without getting to grips with the decision in the SASSA case. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to critically assess how these questions played out, in particular, how the Constitutional Court, against all odds, played its role as the custodian of the Constitution. Firstly, what is the nature and weight of the right to social security? Secondly, could the private entity (CPS) be placed under legal obligation to guarantee the rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, in particular, where no valid contract exists between a private entity and a state organ? Thirdly, what are the implications of the Court’s order against CPS for the laws of contract? As the SASSA decision was only handed down in March 2017, it has not been unpacked fully. A number of interesting legal issues are brought sharply into focus in light of this court order. Indeed, the Court itself conceded that this order pushes at the limits of its exercise of a just and equitable remedial power. That CPS is a private entity, which, in the ordinary course of events, is not the primary duty-bearer in so far as human rights are concerned. There was no valid contract between SASSA and CPS and 2. The Court made a number of orders, including an order that “(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Limited (CPS) are under a constitutional obligation to ensure payment of social grants to grant beneficiaries from 1 April 2017 until an entity other than CPS is able to do so and that a failure to do so will infringe upon grant beneficiaries’ rights of access to social assistance under section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution.” This order was made despite the fact that 1. ![]() The case dealt with the payment of social grants, which, in accordance with the South African Agency Act, is the responsibility of SASSA. The Constitutional Court, on 17 March 2017 handed down judgment in the case of Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development (South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) case). Custodian of the Constitution, court order, social security, obligation to guarantee the rights, laws of contract Abstract ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |