AllPay v CEO of SASSA

AllPay v CEO of SASSA II
AllPay v CEO of SASSA II
Court	Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case name	Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (No. 2)
Decided	17 April 2014
Docket nos.	CCT 48/13
Citation(s)	[2014] ZACC 12; 2014 (6) BCLR 641 (CC); 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC)
Court membership
Judges sitting	Moseneke ACJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J, Dambuza AJ and Majiedt AJ
Case opinions
Decision by	Froneman J (unanimous)

AllPay v CEO of SASSA I
AllPay v CEO of SASSA I
Court	Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case name	Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others
Decided	29 November 2013
Docket nos.	CCT 48/13
Citation(s)	[2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 1 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)	Supreme Court of Appeal – AllPay v CEO of SASSA [2013] ZASCA 29 ; North Gauteng High Court – AllPay v CEO of SASSA [2012] ZASCA 185
Court membership
Judges sitting	Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J and Mhlantla AJ
Case opinions
	The South African Social Security Agency's award of a tender to Cash Paymaster Services for the administration of social grants is constitutionally invalid.
Decision by	Froneman J (unanimous)

Last updated February 12, 2024

AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others is the name of three related decisions of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down in 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. The decisions led to the invalidation of an irregular contract between the South African Social Security Agency and Cash Paymaster Services for the administration of social grants nationwide, precipitating the grants crisis of 2017. Litigation continued in Black Sash v Minister of Social Development .

AllPayI: 2013

Background

In February 2012, the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) awarded a R10-billion tender to Cash Paymaster Services, a subsidiary of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, under which Cash Paymaster was contracted to administer the payment of social grants to millions of beneficiaries countrywide. An unsuccessful tenderer, AllPay Consolidated Holdings, contended that this contract was constitutionally invalid. In particular, it alleged that there had been procedural irregularities, inter alia, in the composition of the bid evaluation committee, in the due diligence conducted in respect of Cash Paymaster's black economic empowerment (BEE) compliance, and in SASSA's issuing of a "bidders' notice" in June 2011. AllPay therefore held that the tender process was inconsistent with section 217(1) of the Constitution, which required that public procurement processes must be carried out "in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective".

Prior action

AllPay applied to the High Court of South Africa for judicial review of the tender award. In August 2012, Judge Elias Matojane of the High Court's North Gauteng Division issued a declaratory order in AllPay's favour, holding that the tender process had indeed been invalid.^[1] However, he declined to set the award aside, fearing that the practical effect of such a move would be to disrupt the delivery of social grants on which millions of residents relied.

AllPay appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the High Court's refusal to set the award aside, while Cash Paymaster cross-appealed the declaration of invalidity. In March 2013, in a unanimous judgment authored by Judge of Appeal Robert Nugent, the Supreme Court found in Cash Paymaster's favour, overturning the declaratory order of the High Court.^[2] The Supreme Court held, controversially,^[3] that it was not in the public interest to invalidate the tender because of what it called "inconsequential irregularities": procedural irregularities which had not affected the outcome of the tender process.

AllPay thus appealed to the Constitutional Court of South Africa.^[4] The Constitutional Court heard argument on 10 September 2013,^[5] and it delivered judgment on 29 November 2013. Corruption Watch and the Centre for Child Law were admitted as amici curiae.

Judgment

The Constitutional Court's judgment was written by Justice Johan Froneman on behalf of a unanimous bench which also included Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, Acting Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla, and Justices Edwin Cameron, Chris Jafta, Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Bess Nkabinde, Thembile Skweyiya, Johann van der Westhuizen, and Raymond Zondo. The court found in AllPay's favour, upholding its appeal and reinstating the High Court's declaratory order to the effect that the award of the tender to Cash Paymaster was constitutionally invalid.

In reaching this conclusion, Froneman deviated markedly from the approach employed by the Supreme Court of Appeal. He set out the following prescripts for evaluating the lawfulness of a tender award:

"The suggestion that 'inconsequential irregularities' are of no moment conflates the test for irregularities and their import; hence an assessment of the fairness and lawfulness of the procurement process must be independent of the outcome of the tender process.
The materiality of compliance with legal requirements depends on the extent to which the purpose of the requirements is attained.
The constitutional and legislative procurement framework entails supply chain management prescripts that are legally binding.
The fairness and lawfulness of the procurement process must be assessed in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
Black economic empowerment generally requires substantive participation in the management and running of any enterprise.
The remedy stage is where appropriate consideration must be given to the public interest in the consequences of setting the procurement process aside.

Applying this framework, the court dismissed several of AllPay's arguments about alleged irregularities in aspects of the tender process. However, it found that there had been two material irregularities, both in contravention of provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act: SASSA had not required Cash Paymaster to substantiate its claim that its BEE partners would manage and execute over 74 per cent of the tender, and SASSA's bidders' notice of June 2011 had created "vagueness and uncertainty" about the criteria used in the tender process. On these grounds, the award of the tender was invalid.

However, the court reserved judgment on the relief to be granted, pending a further hearing on 11 February 2014. Like the High Court, the court was perturbed by submissions which warned that setting aside the Cash Paymaster contract would cause "great disruption" to grant beneficiaries. Moreover, Froneman found that the question of remedy raised "difficult factual and legal issues" which could not adequately be resolved with the information currently available to the court. The court therefore suspended its order of invalidity and directed the disputants and amici curiae to furnish additional factual information and argument on the administration of social grants, the costs involved in implementing a new grants system, and possible means of ameliorating such costs.

AllPayII: 2014

As it had directed in AllPay I, the Constitutional Court heard argument on the question of relief on 11 February 2014. Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke (now acting as Chief Justice) and Justices Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, van der Westhuizen, and Zondo remained on the bench; they were newly joined by Justice Sisi Khampepe and Acting Justices Nambitha Dambuza and Steven Majiedt. The court's judgment was handed down on 17 April 2014; like the judgment in AllPay I, it was unanimous and was written by Justice Froneman.

Judgment

In its order, the court ordered SASSA to initiate a new tender process for the administration of social grants, holding that Cash Paymaster "has no right to benefit from an unlawful contract". In order to minimise the disruption to the delivery of social grants, it suspended its order of invalidity against the AllPay contract so that it would take effect only after SASSA had awarded a new tender.

The court also imposed a structural interdict, an unusual remedy which required SASSA to make quarterly reports to the Registrar of the Constitutional Court on the progress of the tender evaluation process. Cash Paymaster was also required to provide the court with an audited financial statement of the expenses and income it had incurred under the invalid contract.

AllPay III: 2015

In AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (CCT 48/13) [2015] ZACC 7; 2015 (6) BCLR 653 (CC) (24 March 2015), the court heard a challenge lodged by AllPay against the new request for proposals that SASSA had issued to replace the invalidated tender.

Aftermath

The invalidation of the Cash Paymaster contract in AllPay II, and the intransigence of SASSA, led to the grants crisis of 2017 and to a related sequence of litigation in the Constitutional Court in Black Sash v Minister of Social Development .^[6]^[7]

Related Research Articles

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primarily concerned with the enforceability of box-top licenses and end user license agreements (EULA) and their place in U.S. contract law. During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems was a value-added reseller, combining hardware and software from different vendors to offer a fully functioning computer system to various end users. Step-Saver's products included software produced by Software Link, Inc (TSL), computer terminals produced by Wyse Technology, and main computers produced by IBM. The fundamental question raised in this case was whether the shrinkwrap licenses accompanying TSL's software were legally binding, given that different terms were negotiated over the phone with Step-Saver prior to receiving physical copies of the software. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the court ruled that the shrinkwrap licenses were legally binding. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the shrinkwrap licenses were not legally binding.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) is a national agency of the South African government created in April 2005 to administer South Africa's social security system, including by distributing social grants, on behalf of the Department of Social Development (DSD). It is under the oversight, but not the operational control, of DSD and the Ministry of Social Development. Established in terms of the Social Assistance Act of 2004 and South African Social Security Agency Act of 2004, SASSA is a public entity in terms of Schedule 3A of the Public Finance Management Act. As of 2022 its chief executive officer was Busisiwe Memela-Khambula.

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, "[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies."

Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30 and May 1, 1900, to decide the outcome of the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. The litigants were Republican gubernatorial candidate William S. Taylor and Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial candidate J. C. W. Beckham. In the November 7, 1899, election, Taylor received 193,714 votes to Democrat William Goebel's 191,331. This result was certified by a 2–1 decision of the state's Board of Elections. Goebel challenged the election results on the basis of alleged voting irregularities, and the Democrat-controlled Kentucky General Assembly formed a committee to investigate Goebel's claims. Goebel was shot on January 30, 1900, one day before the General Assembly approved the committee's report declaring enough Taylor votes invalid to swing the election to Goebel. As he lay dying of his wounds, Goebel was sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died on February 3, 1900, and Beckham ascended to the governorship.

Bathabile Dlamini is a South African politician who was the President of the African National Congress (ANC) Women's League from 2015 to 2022. She was previously the Minister in the Presidency for Women from 2018 to 2019 and the Minister of Social Development from 2010 to 2018.

Gundwana v Steko Development CC and Others is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure. The Constitutional Court held unanimously that Registrars of the High Court are not constitutionally competent to authorise sales in execution of mortgaged homes when granting a default judgment. In such cases, the determination of executability requires judicial oversight, because it touches on the homeowner's right to housing under section 26 of the Constitution.

Johan Coenraad Froneman is a South African retired judge who was a justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa from October 2009 to May 2020. He joined the judiciary as a judge of the Eastern Cape Division in 1994 and was elevated to the apex court by President Jacob Zuma. He was also the inaugural Deputy Judge President of the Labour Court of South Africa between 1996 and 1999.

Fraser v ABSA Bank Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa with import for South African criminal procedure. It concerns the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998, dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime. It was heard on 23 May 2006 and decided on 15 December 2006 with a unanimous judgment written by Justice Johann van der Westhuizen.

New Nation Movement NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, [2020] ZACC 11, is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down on 11 June 2020, which declared that the Constitution requires that citizens be allowed to stand for election to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures as independents without having to join or form a political party. The declaration was suspended for 24 months to allow Parliament to modify the electoral laws to comply. The majority judgment was written by Justice Madlanga and a concurring opinion was written by Justice Jafta; these opinions were supported by eight of the nine judges hearing the case. Justice Froneman filed a dissenting opinion.

Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another is a 2021 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on hate speech. The court found that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 was unconstitutional insofar as it included the vague term "hurtful" as part of the definition of prohibited hate speech.

In My Vote Counts NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed an application which sought to compel Parliament to pass legislation mandating the disclosure of political party funding information. Split seven to four, the court held that the application transgressed the principle of subsidiarity and separation of powers.

My Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another is a decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established a constitutional right of access to information about the sources of political party funding. The court held unanimously that the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 was inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it failed to give effect to that right. The matter was heard on 13 March 2018 and decided on 21 June 2018, with a majority judgment written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others is a 2018 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on prosecutorial independence. In a judgment written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the court affirmed unanimously that section 179(4) of the Constitution provided for the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority. It therefore held that sections of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 were unconstitutional insofar as they granted the President discretion over certain aspects of senior prosecutors' terms of employment, thereby compromising prosecutorial independence.

Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another is a 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Parliament's constitutional obligation to hold the President accountable for his conduct. In a majority judgment written by Justice Chris Jafta, the court ordered the National Assembly to make rules regulating presidential impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution and to use those rules to determine whether President Jacob Zuma had committed impeachable conduct in failing to comply with a report by the Public Protector. Arising from the Nkandlagate scandal, the case was politically sensitive, and critics held that the court's order transgressed the separation of powers.

Le Roux and Others v Dey is a 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the South African law of delict. It was the court's first decision on alleged defamation by a minor. A majority of the court upheld the award of monetary damages to a high school vice-principal who had been defamed by three of his pupils through the publication of a digitally manipulated photo.

References

↑ "Court declares R10bn social grant tender invalid". The Mail & Guardian. 28 August 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2024.
↑ "SCA upholds Cash Paymaster Services' grants tender". The Mail & Guardian. 27 March 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2024.
↑ Phooko, Moses Retselisitsoe (2014). "'Flaws' in public procurement not synonymous with 'irregularities': a guide to determining irregularities that are sufficient to invalidate a contract". International Journal of Public Law and Policy. 4 (4): 352. doi:10.1504/IJPLAP.2014.065210. ISSN 2044-7663.
↑ "AllPay appeals ruling on R10bn tender". News24. 22 April 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2024.
↑ "Hulley had 'no role' in R10bn Sassa social grant tender". The Mail & Guardian. 11 September 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2024.
↑ Taylor, Helen (2019). "Forcing the court's remedial hand: non-compliance as a catalyst for remedial innovation". Constitutional Court Review. 9 (1): 247–281. doi:10.2989/CCR.2019.0010. ISSN 2073-6215.
↑ Mokoena, Untalimile Crystal; Mopai, Zamokuhle; Emma Charlene Lubaale (30 April 2018). "The Custodial Role of the Constitutional Court at Play: A Critical Analysis of the Case of Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development [2017] ZACC 8". Obiter. 39 (1). doi:10.17159/obiter.v39i1.11406. ISSN 2709-555X.

AllPay v CEO of SASSA

Contents

AllPayI: 2013

Background

Prior action

Judgment

AllPayII: 2014

Judgment

AllPay III: 2015

Aftermath

Related Research Articles

References

Further reading