FUR2601
EXAM PACK
,FUR2601
ASSESSMENT 2 APRIL 2025
EXAM ASWERS
QUESTION 1 [12]
The court order contains four different remedies aimed at addressing the invalid social-
grant tender while preventing beneficiaries from being left without access to their grants.
1.1 Declaration of invalidity [3]
Remedy: Declaratory order/declaration of invalidity.
The Court declared the contract between SASSA and Cash Paymaster invalid because
the tender process did not comply with the constitutional requirements governing public
procurement. A declaration of invalidity establishes that the contract was unlawfully
concluded.
However, an immediate termination could have caused serious disruption to the
payment of social grants. The declaration therefore had to be considered together with
the Court's remedial powers under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows
a court to make an order that is just and equitable.
1.2 Suspension of the declaration for 12 months [3]
Remedy: Suspension of the declaration of invalidity.
The Court suspended the effect of the invalidity declaration for twelve months. This
gave SASSA sufficient time to conduct a lawful tender process and arrange an
alternative system for paying social grants.
The purpose was to avoid the serious prejudice that an immediate termination of the
existing contract would have caused to millions of social-grant beneficiaries. The
,suspension therefore balanced constitutional legality with practical and social
necessity.
1.3 Order to initiate a new tender process [2]
Remedy: Mandatory/structural order directing corrective action.
The Court ordered SASSA to begin a new tender process within 30 days. This was
necessary to ensure that the unconstitutional situation was actually corrected rather
than merely being declared unlawful.
The order provided a definite time frame and required SASSA to comply with
constitutional procurement requirements when replacing the invalid contract.
1.4 Periodic reporting to the Court [4]
Remedy: Supervisory or structural interdict/order.
The Court required the Minister and SASSA to submit reports every three months
concerning their progress in developing a system for paying social grants after the
twelve-month period.
This remedy allowed the Court to monitor compliance with its order and ensure that
SASSA did not simply ignore or delay the corrective process. It was particularly
appropriate because the matter affected vulnerable beneficiaries and required
continuing governmental action. The reporting requirement therefore provided judicial
supervision while allowing the relevant government institutions to develop the practical
solution.
QUESTION 2 [13]
Section 26(2) and section 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996 provide that the state must take “reasonable legislative and other measures,
, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation” of the rights
to housing and health-care, food, water and social security.
The phrase means that socio-economic rights are not merely aspirational. The state has
a constitutional duty to take positive steps towards their realisation. However, the
Constitution recognises that resources are limited and that these rights may have to be
achieved progressively rather than immediately and completely.
1. Reasonable legislative and other measures
The state must adopt appropriate laws, policies, programmes and administrative
measures aimed at progressively achieving the relevant rights. The measures must be
reasonable in both their design and implementation.
In Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC),
the Constitutional Court held that the government had to establish a reasonable
programme for progressively realising the right of access to adequate housing. The
housing programme was found unreasonable because it failed to make adequate
provision for people in desperate or crisis situations.
The Court therefore does not simply ask whether government has adopted a policy. It
examines whether the policy and its implementation are reasonable in light of the
constitutional obligation.
2. Progressive realisation
Progressive realisation means that the state is generally not required to fulfil all socio-
economic rights immediately. It must, however, continually move towards greater
access to the relevant rights.
In Grootboom, the Court recognised that the Constitution accepts that socio-economic
rights may need to be achieved over time because resources and administrative
capacity are limited.
EXAM PACK
,FUR2601
ASSESSMENT 2 APRIL 2025
EXAM ASWERS
QUESTION 1 [12]
The court order contains four different remedies aimed at addressing the invalid social-
grant tender while preventing beneficiaries from being left without access to their grants.
1.1 Declaration of invalidity [3]
Remedy: Declaratory order/declaration of invalidity.
The Court declared the contract between SASSA and Cash Paymaster invalid because
the tender process did not comply with the constitutional requirements governing public
procurement. A declaration of invalidity establishes that the contract was unlawfully
concluded.
However, an immediate termination could have caused serious disruption to the
payment of social grants. The declaration therefore had to be considered together with
the Court's remedial powers under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows
a court to make an order that is just and equitable.
1.2 Suspension of the declaration for 12 months [3]
Remedy: Suspension of the declaration of invalidity.
The Court suspended the effect of the invalidity declaration for twelve months. This
gave SASSA sufficient time to conduct a lawful tender process and arrange an
alternative system for paying social grants.
The purpose was to avoid the serious prejudice that an immediate termination of the
existing contract would have caused to millions of social-grant beneficiaries. The
,suspension therefore balanced constitutional legality with practical and social
necessity.
1.3 Order to initiate a new tender process [2]
Remedy: Mandatory/structural order directing corrective action.
The Court ordered SASSA to begin a new tender process within 30 days. This was
necessary to ensure that the unconstitutional situation was actually corrected rather
than merely being declared unlawful.
The order provided a definite time frame and required SASSA to comply with
constitutional procurement requirements when replacing the invalid contract.
1.4 Periodic reporting to the Court [4]
Remedy: Supervisory or structural interdict/order.
The Court required the Minister and SASSA to submit reports every three months
concerning their progress in developing a system for paying social grants after the
twelve-month period.
This remedy allowed the Court to monitor compliance with its order and ensure that
SASSA did not simply ignore or delay the corrective process. It was particularly
appropriate because the matter affected vulnerable beneficiaries and required
continuing governmental action. The reporting requirement therefore provided judicial
supervision while allowing the relevant government institutions to develop the practical
solution.
QUESTION 2 [13]
Section 26(2) and section 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996 provide that the state must take “reasonable legislative and other measures,
, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation” of the rights
to housing and health-care, food, water and social security.
The phrase means that socio-economic rights are not merely aspirational. The state has
a constitutional duty to take positive steps towards their realisation. However, the
Constitution recognises that resources are limited and that these rights may have to be
achieved progressively rather than immediately and completely.
1. Reasonable legislative and other measures
The state must adopt appropriate laws, policies, programmes and administrative
measures aimed at progressively achieving the relevant rights. The measures must be
reasonable in both their design and implementation.
In Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC),
the Constitutional Court held that the government had to establish a reasonable
programme for progressively realising the right of access to adequate housing. The
housing programme was found unreasonable because it failed to make adequate
provision for people in desperate or crisis situations.
The Court therefore does not simply ask whether government has adopted a policy. It
examines whether the policy and its implementation are reasonable in light of the
constitutional obligation.
2. Progressive realisation
Progressive realisation means that the state is generally not required to fulfil all socio-
economic rights immediately. It must, however, continually move towards greater
access to the relevant rights.
In Grootboom, the Court recognised that the Constitution accepts that socio-economic
rights may need to be achieved over time because resources and administrative
capacity are limited.
