Institution
University of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Social Security Law (MSL5901)
MSL5901 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
2026 - DUE 13 May 2026; 100% TRUSTED
Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
Read the judgments in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others [2017] ZACC 8 and
South African Social Security Agency and another v Minister of Social Development and others [2018]
ZACC 26 and critically discuss the intervention by the court in the administration of social grants in South
Africa. In your answer, evaluate the constitutional significance of these judgments and express your own
, view regarding the Court’s willingness to postpone or suspend the consequences of otherwise unlawful
conduct.
Judicial Intervention in the Administration of Social Grants in South Africa
The cases of Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others and South African Social
Security Agency v Minister of Social Development represent some of the most significant constitutional
interventions by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in safeguarding socio-economic rights. These
judgments illustrate the Court’s proactive role in ensuring the effective administration of social grants, a
critical component of the right to social security under section 27 of the Constitution. Drawing from
Social Security Law in South Africa, these cases highlight the intersection between constitutional
supremacy, administrative justice, and the protection of vulnerable populations.
1. Background and Context
The crisis arose from the invalid contract between the South African Social Security Agency and Cash
Paymaster Services for the distribution of social grants. Although the contract had previously been
declared invalid, the state failed to implement a lawful alternative system in time, placing millions of
beneficiaries at risk of not receiving their grants. This situation threatened the constitutional right to
social assistance, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and persons with
disabilities.
2. Judicial Intervention in Black Sash Trust (2017)
In the Black Sash Trust case, the Court intervened decisively to prevent a humanitarian crisis. It:
√Declared the continued role of CPS unlawful but temporarily permitted its operation
√Ordered SASSA to ensure uninterrupted payment of grants
√Imposed strict supervisory measures, including regular reporting to the Court
√Held government officials personally accountable for failures
Significance
The Court adopted a structural interdict, a remedy that allows ongoing judicial supervision. This reflects
a shift from a passive to an active enforcement role, especially in socio-economic rights cases.
3. Judicial Intervention in SASSA (2018)
In the follow-up case, the Court intensified its oversight:
√It extended the invalid contract temporarily again
University of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Social Security Law (MSL5901)
MSL5901 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
2026 - DUE 13 May 2026; 100% TRUSTED
Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
Read the judgments in Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others [2017] ZACC 8 and
South African Social Security Agency and another v Minister of Social Development and others [2018]
ZACC 26 and critically discuss the intervention by the court in the administration of social grants in South
Africa. In your answer, evaluate the constitutional significance of these judgments and express your own
, view regarding the Court’s willingness to postpone or suspend the consequences of otherwise unlawful
conduct.
Judicial Intervention in the Administration of Social Grants in South Africa
The cases of Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others and South African Social
Security Agency v Minister of Social Development represent some of the most significant constitutional
interventions by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in safeguarding socio-economic rights. These
judgments illustrate the Court’s proactive role in ensuring the effective administration of social grants, a
critical component of the right to social security under section 27 of the Constitution. Drawing from
Social Security Law in South Africa, these cases highlight the intersection between constitutional
supremacy, administrative justice, and the protection of vulnerable populations.
1. Background and Context
The crisis arose from the invalid contract between the South African Social Security Agency and Cash
Paymaster Services for the distribution of social grants. Although the contract had previously been
declared invalid, the state failed to implement a lawful alternative system in time, placing millions of
beneficiaries at risk of not receiving their grants. This situation threatened the constitutional right to
social assistance, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and persons with
disabilities.
2. Judicial Intervention in Black Sash Trust (2017)
In the Black Sash Trust case, the Court intervened decisively to prevent a humanitarian crisis. It:
√Declared the continued role of CPS unlawful but temporarily permitted its operation
√Ordered SASSA to ensure uninterrupted payment of grants
√Imposed strict supervisory measures, including regular reporting to the Court
√Held government officials personally accountable for failures
Significance
The Court adopted a structural interdict, a remedy that allows ongoing judicial supervision. This reflects
a shift from a passive to an active enforcement role, especially in socio-economic rights cases.
3. Judicial Intervention in SASSA (2018)
In the follow-up case, the Court intensified its oversight:
√It extended the invalid contract temporarily again
