FUR2601 ASSIGNMENT O2 SEMESTER 1- 24 APRIL 2025
QUESTION 1
There is a crisis in the provision of social grants due to an invalid tender. The matter goes to court, and the
court gives its order. Examine the following four items in the court order. Name each remedy used, and
briefly explain why the Court chose to use each of them. (In other words, briefly explain the
necessity/benefit of each remedy.)
1.1 The Contract for the payment of social grants between the South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (Cash Paymaster) dated 3 February 2012 is declared
invalid.
1.2 This declaration is suspended for twelve months, to allow SASSA to complete a new tender process
as per item (1.3) below.
1.3 SASSA must initiate a new tender process for the payment of social grants within 30 days of this
order.
1.4 The Minister and SASSA must return and file reports with this Court every three months,
commencing on the date of this order, setting out the progress of their plan to pay social grants after the
expiry of the 12-month period.
QUESTION 2
With refence to relevant case law, describe what is meant by the phrase in section 26 and 27 of the Bill of
Rights that “the state must take reasonable, legislative and other measures, within its available resources,
to achieve progressive realisation of this rights”.
QUESTION 3
Two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) decide to start their own bursary funds. The first, “MEN Aid
NGO” aims to provide bursaries only to Agriculture students who are classified as “male”. The second,
“WOMEN Aid NGO” aims to provide bursaries only to Agriculture students who are classified as “female”.
Agriculture is 80% male dominated industry. Both NGOs claim that their bursary schemes amount to redress
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT ASSISTANCE WHATSAPP
083 286 8465 EMAIL:
, QUESTION 1
1.1. Remedy: Declaration of Invalidity
The court declared the contract between the South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services to be invalid. This remedy was justified
because the tender process leading to the contract was found to be unlawful and
unconstitutional. Declaring the contract invalid reinforces the rule of law and ensures
that public procurement processes remain fair, transparent, and accountable, as
mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution). 1
Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution requires a court to declare any law or conduct
inconsistent with the Constitution to be invalid. 2 By invalidating the contract, the court
confirmed that it had no legal force, thereby promoting transparency and
accountability in public administration.
1.2. Remedy: Suspension of Invalidity
Although the contract was declared invalid, the court suspended this declaration for
12 months. The suspension period gave SASSA sufficient time to arrange an
alternative method for paying social grants. Had the contract been immediately
voided, millions of vulnerable recipients would have been left without essential
financial support. This temporary suspension thus safeguarded both constitutional
compliance in the long term and uninterrupted delivery of social services. 3
1.3. Remedy: Mandatory Order (Mandamus)
The court directed SASSA to initiate a new tender process within 30 days.
By imposing a mandatory order, the court ensured prompt corrective measures,
preventing further delays and safeguarding the constitutional right to social
assistance.4 It also compelled adherence to lawful procurement procedures and
mitigated the risk of recurring violations or disruptions in grant distribution.
1.4 Remedy: Structural Interdict
The court required the Minister and SASSA to submit progress reports every three
months. A structural interdict allows judicial oversight to ensure ongoing compliance
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
2
Constitution (n 1) s 172(1)(a).
3
Constitution (n 1) s 172(1)(a).
4
Constitution (n 1) s 195
QUESTION 1
There is a crisis in the provision of social grants due to an invalid tender. The matter goes to court, and the
court gives its order. Examine the following four items in the court order. Name each remedy used, and
briefly explain why the Court chose to use each of them. (In other words, briefly explain the
necessity/benefit of each remedy.)
1.1 The Contract for the payment of social grants between the South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (Cash Paymaster) dated 3 February 2012 is declared
invalid.
1.2 This declaration is suspended for twelve months, to allow SASSA to complete a new tender process
as per item (1.3) below.
1.3 SASSA must initiate a new tender process for the payment of social grants within 30 days of this
order.
1.4 The Minister and SASSA must return and file reports with this Court every three months,
commencing on the date of this order, setting out the progress of their plan to pay social grants after the
expiry of the 12-month period.
QUESTION 2
With refence to relevant case law, describe what is meant by the phrase in section 26 and 27 of the Bill of
Rights that “the state must take reasonable, legislative and other measures, within its available resources,
to achieve progressive realisation of this rights”.
QUESTION 3
Two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) decide to start their own bursary funds. The first, “MEN Aid
NGO” aims to provide bursaries only to Agriculture students who are classified as “male”. The second,
“WOMEN Aid NGO” aims to provide bursaries only to Agriculture students who are classified as “female”.
Agriculture is 80% male dominated industry. Both NGOs claim that their bursary schemes amount to redress
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT ASSISTANCE WHATSAPP
083 286 8465 EMAIL:
, QUESTION 1
1.1. Remedy: Declaration of Invalidity
The court declared the contract between the South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services to be invalid. This remedy was justified
because the tender process leading to the contract was found to be unlawful and
unconstitutional. Declaring the contract invalid reinforces the rule of law and ensures
that public procurement processes remain fair, transparent, and accountable, as
mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution). 1
Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution requires a court to declare any law or conduct
inconsistent with the Constitution to be invalid. 2 By invalidating the contract, the court
confirmed that it had no legal force, thereby promoting transparency and
accountability in public administration.
1.2. Remedy: Suspension of Invalidity
Although the contract was declared invalid, the court suspended this declaration for
12 months. The suspension period gave SASSA sufficient time to arrange an
alternative method for paying social grants. Had the contract been immediately
voided, millions of vulnerable recipients would have been left without essential
financial support. This temporary suspension thus safeguarded both constitutional
compliance in the long term and uninterrupted delivery of social services. 3
1.3. Remedy: Mandatory Order (Mandamus)
The court directed SASSA to initiate a new tender process within 30 days.
By imposing a mandatory order, the court ensured prompt corrective measures,
preventing further delays and safeguarding the constitutional right to social
assistance.4 It also compelled adherence to lawful procurement procedures and
mitigated the risk of recurring violations or disruptions in grant distribution.
1.4 Remedy: Structural Interdict
The court required the Minister and SASSA to submit progress reports every three
months. A structural interdict allows judicial oversight to ensure ongoing compliance
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
2
Constitution (n 1) s 172(1)(a).
3
Constitution (n 1) s 172(1)(a).
4
Constitution (n 1) s 195
