The Gauteng High Court declared the regulations governing the eligibility criteria as well as verification checks for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant unconstitutional and invalid. This marks a significant victory for millions who were previously denied critical financial support.
Introduced in 2020, the SRD grant is the only financial support available to unemployed adults in South Africa. However, not every unemployed adult automatically qualifies for the grant.
SRD Grant Requirements
To qualify for the SRD grant, applicants must meet the following criteria: they must be between the ages of 18 and 59, unemployed, have a bank balance not exceeding R629, and not benefit from other government support, such as the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) or the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS).
The South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) employs several mechanisms to ensure that only deserving individuals, as per the eligibility criteria, receive SRD grant payments. However, the High Court found that these mechanisms had excluded many deserving individuals from receiving the relief grant.
In 2024, #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI), took the Department of Social Development (DSD) to court to challenge the SRD grant regulations. The High Court delivered its judgment on January 23, 2025.
The court criticized the DSD and Sassa for failing to adequately address applicants' needs. It found that these government agencies had abdicated their responsibilities, leaving many eligible applicants unable to access the grant due to overly restrictive regulations.
This is so because they have totally abdicated their responsibilities in these proceedings, in that they failed to fully answer the case of the applicants and left that responsibility to the National Treasury on the pretext that the Minister of Finance has concurrent authority in the case.
The court also criticized Sassa's inefficient administration and payment delays, declaring that Sassa's failure to make timely payments to successful applicants was unconstitutional.
Judge ML Twala noted that the DSD and Sassa had ignored the significant hardships caused by their administrative failures.
The Department of Social Development and Sassa seem to be oblivious to the human suffering and indignity caused by regulations that create barriers for eligible SRD grant applicants and by the inefficient administration and payment of the SRD grant to successful applicants,” Judge Twala said.
A key point of contention in the court case was Sassa’s assertion that the SRD grant is "temporary." Judge Twala argued that this designation left beneficiaries in a constant state of uncertainty.
I hold the view that the SRD grant has the same legal status as other social grants provided for by the Social Assistance Act and is not a temporary measure, as contended by the respondents.
The judgement also ordered the DSD to open more application channels for individuals to apply for the SRD grant, saying, "there is no reason why SRD grant beneficiaries should not be provided with alternative methods of applying for the grant, like other grant beneficiaries".
The court directed the DSD to redefine "income" as money received on a regular basis from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments. Additionally, "financial support" must be defined as money received regularly that benefits the recipient.
The court also restricted the use of certain databases to determine eligibility, citing the potential for inaccurate and unfair assessments.
It is incomprehensible why the respondents would continue to use the government database verification process, knowing that it provides inaccurate information and excludes eligible applicants from receiving the SRD grant. The database verification process is therefore unreasonable, unfair, and used with an ulterior purpose of excluding eligible applicants.
Sassa’s bank verification process for SRD grant applications was similarly criticized.
"I hold the view that the continued use of the bank verification process is intended to reduce the number of beneficiaries and, by extension, to reduce the cost of the SRD grant. This is not in line with the purpose of the Social Assistance Act. The automated bank verification process is unfair, unreasonable, and violates sections 9 and 27 of the Constitution."
Sassa was ordered to investigate and address the widespread delays in grant payments.
It should be remembered that the SRD grant is intended for the poor and to alleviate hunger. For this group of society to not receive the grant timeously—or at all—has dire consequences.
The court further directed the government to consider inflation and the cost of living to ensure that no one living in poverty is excluded from the grant. Notably, the SRD grant has only increased by R20 since its introduction in 2020.
The IEJ welcomed the ruling and urged the government not to contest it.
The judgment paves the way to give effect to the government’s own policies, as articulated by the President, of ensuring a social assistance floor for all, improving and expanding the SRD grant, and transitioning to a system of basic income support
#PayTheGrants also celebrated the ruling as a victory for justice and fairness. "Together, we stand strong and united in our commitment to justice and equality. Your support has been instrumental in achieving this victory, and we look forward to continuing this journey with you."
