UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
Legal Opinion on Khosa & Others v The Minister of
Social Development & Others; Mahlaule & Others v
The Minister of Social Development & Others
2004 (6) SA 505 (CC)
Assignment 2026
⋄
Module Code: MSL5901
Module Name: Social Security Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 2026
Due Date: 15 September 2026
Semester: 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSL5901
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MSL5901 Khosa v Minister of Social Development
Legal Opinion: Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule
and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC)
The judgment of the Constitutional Court in Khosa1 remains one of the clearest statements
on the reach of section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution and on the position of permanent resi-
dents within the constitutional community. This opinion sets out the material facts, the is-
sues placed before the Court, the Court’s reasoning and order, and its interpretation of the
right of access to social security, before offering a concluding assessment of the correctness
and continuing significance of the judgment.
1.1 Material Facts
The applicants in both matters were Mozambican nationals who had acquired permanent
residence in South Africa.2 With one exception, they had fled the Mozambican civil war dur-
ing the 1980s and settled in the former Gazankulu territory, now part of Limpopo Province,
where they became integrated members of local communities over an extended period.3
They were indigent and would, but for their citizenship status, have qualified for assistance
under the Social Assistance Act,4 which confined the relevant grants to South African citi-
zens.5 In the Khosa matter the applicants sought old age grants; in the Mahlaule matter the
applicants challenged the citizenship requirement as it affected child support and care de-
pendency grants.6 One applicant had previously received an old age grant, but payment was
terminated during a provincial verification exercise, and he could not reapply because he was
not a citizen; the other applications were refused on the same ground.7 The High Court de-
clared the citizenship requirement constitutionally invalid, and the matter was referred to the
Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution.8
1
Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social
Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) (‘Khosa’).
2
Khosa (n 1) paras 1–2.
3
Khosa (n 1) para 3.
4
Social Assistance Act 59 of 1992, s 3(c).
5
Khosa (n 1) para 2.
6
Khosa (n 1) paras 2, 4.
7
Khosa (n 1) paras 6–7.
8
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 172(2)(a); Khosa (n 1) para 7.
Page 1 of 8
College of Law
⋄
Legal Opinion on Khosa & Others v The Minister of
Social Development & Others; Mahlaule & Others v
The Minister of Social Development & Others
2004 (6) SA 505 (CC)
Assignment 2026
⋄
Module Code: MSL5901
Module Name: Social Security Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 2026
Due Date: 15 September 2026
Semester: 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSL5901
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MSL5901 Khosa v Minister of Social Development
Legal Opinion: Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule
and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC)
The judgment of the Constitutional Court in Khosa1 remains one of the clearest statements
on the reach of section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution and on the position of permanent resi-
dents within the constitutional community. This opinion sets out the material facts, the is-
sues placed before the Court, the Court’s reasoning and order, and its interpretation of the
right of access to social security, before offering a concluding assessment of the correctness
and continuing significance of the judgment.
1.1 Material Facts
The applicants in both matters were Mozambican nationals who had acquired permanent
residence in South Africa.2 With one exception, they had fled the Mozambican civil war dur-
ing the 1980s and settled in the former Gazankulu territory, now part of Limpopo Province,
where they became integrated members of local communities over an extended period.3
They were indigent and would, but for their citizenship status, have qualified for assistance
under the Social Assistance Act,4 which confined the relevant grants to South African citi-
zens.5 In the Khosa matter the applicants sought old age grants; in the Mahlaule matter the
applicants challenged the citizenship requirement as it affected child support and care de-
pendency grants.6 One applicant had previously received an old age grant, but payment was
terminated during a provincial verification exercise, and he could not reapply because he was
not a citizen; the other applications were refused on the same ground.7 The High Court de-
clared the citizenship requirement constitutionally invalid, and the matter was referred to the
Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution.8
1
Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social
Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) (‘Khosa’).
2
Khosa (n 1) paras 1–2.
3
Khosa (n 1) para 3.
4
Social Assistance Act 59 of 1992, s 3(c).
5
Khosa (n 1) para 2.
6
Khosa (n 1) paras 2, 4.
7
Khosa (n 1) paras 6–7.
8
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 172(2)(a); Khosa (n 1) para 7.
Page 1 of 8
