Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-06-14T11:50:31Z
dc.date.available 2017-06-14T11:50:31Z
dc.identifier.citation [2017] ZACC 20
dc.identifier.citation 2017 (9) BCLR 1089 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/34464
dc.title Black Sash Trust (Freedom Under Law NPC Intervening) v Minister of Social Development and Others (Corruption Watch (NPC) RF and South African Post Office Soc Limited as Amici Curiae) en_US
dc.title.alternative CCT48/17A
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT48/17A
dc.date.hearing 15 March 2017
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J
dc.date.judgment 15 June 2017
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/34464/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2015%20June%202017.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Judgment following a rule nisi calling on the Minister of Social Development to give reasons why she should not be ordered to pay costs personally in the earlier Constitutional Court judgment. The previous judgment had declared that the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) to have a constitutional obligation to ensure payments of social grants and suspended an earlier declaration of invalidity of the CPS contract to do so. The Minister had alleged that the CEO of SASSA had failed “to engage comprehensively” with her, which resulted in the delay in implementing grant payments. The CEO of SASSA and former Director-General of the Department of Social Development argued that the Minister had created decision-making and communication processes (“work streams”) that bypassed regular processes, and that this resulted in a deliberate “self-created emergency” intended to benefit CPS. Formally joining a state official to proceedings would serve to make the Minister aware of the risks and give her a further opportunity to argue the matter. Constitutional tests for bad faith and gross negligence will then be applied to assess whether a costs order is justified. The Court joined the Minister to the proceedings and ordered that the parties report on whether they could agree on an appointment of a referee to produce a report on the Minister’s role in creating the “work streams”, and would issue further directions if no such agreement was reached.
dc.concourt.casehistory Main judgment in this case is: Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development [2017] ZACC 8; 2017 (5) BCLR 543 (CC). In that judgment first respondent was called upon to show cause on affidavit why she should not be joined to the proceedings in her personal capacity and why she should not be ordered to pay the costs of the application out of her own pocket.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account