Khosa v Minister of Social Development; Mahlaule v Minister of Social Development

Last updated

Khosa v Minister of Social Development; Mahlaule v Minister of Social Development
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameKhosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others
Decided4 March 2004
Docket nos.CCT 12/03; CCT 13/03
Citation(s) [2004] ZACC 11; 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC); 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC)
Case history
Appealed from High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division –Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (25455/02) and Mahlaule and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (25453/02)
Court membership
Judges sitting Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Moseneke J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J and Yacoob J
Case opinions
The Bill of Rights prohibits the exclusion of permanent residents from the social welfare system. Provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 are therefore unconstitutional.
Decision byMokgoro J (Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Moseneke, O’Regan and Yacoob concurring)
DissentNgcobo J (Madala concurring)
Keywords

Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others, Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established that it is unconstitutional to exclude permanent residents from the social welfare system on the grounds that they lack South African citizenship. The court found that provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 were unconstitutional on that basis.

Contents

The matter was decided on 4 March 2004 with the court split seven to two; Justice Yvonne Mokgoro wrote the majority judgement. The holding stemmed primarily from the Constitution's section 27 socioeconomic right to access social security and social assistance, as well as from the section 9 right to freedom from unfair discrimination.

Background

The applicants were five Mozambican citizens, all but one of whom had arrived in Limpopo, South Africa in the 1980s as refugees of the Mozambican Civil War. All five had acquired permanent residency status in South Africa in terms of exemptions granted to eligible Mozambican citizens under the Aliens Control Act, 1991. Each was indigent and would ordinarily be eligible for state-funded social assistance, but each had been denied social grants on the basis that they lacked South African citizenship. The applicants therefore challenged the constitutionality of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 insofar as it reserved certain social grants – old-age grants, child-support grants, and care-dependency grants – for South African citizens. Although the applicants lodged two independent applications in the High Court of South Africa, the matters were heard together because of their similarities. [1] [2]

When the matters came before the Transvaal Provincial Division in March 2003, the respondents (the Minister of Social Development, the Director-General of Social Development and the Member of the Executive Committee for Health and Welfare in the Northern Province) were not present or represented at the hearing. The High Court therefore dealt with the matters as unopposed applications and judged the relevant provisions of the Social Assistance Act to be unconstitutional; those provisions stood to be struck down. The High Court's order of constitutional invalidity was referred for confirmation to the Constitutional Court, where the matter was heard in May 2003 and where the applicants were represented by Paul Kennedy SC and the Legal Resources Centre.

Majority judgment

In a majority judgment written by Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, the Constitutional Court upheld the finding of unconstitutionality, holding that the relevant provisions of the Social Assistance Act were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that "Everyone has the right to have access to— social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance," and the court held that the word "everyone" should be read literally, entailing that permanent residents were bearers of the right to social security. The court also found that the exclusion of permanent residents from the welfare system constituted unfair discrimination and therefore infringed upon the section 9 right to equality; in this assessment, it relied heavily on the approach of Hoffmann v South African Airways , according to which the unfairness of a discriminatory system must be assessed primarily with reference to the system's impact on the person discriminated against. [3] In this case, the impact of the discriminatory exclusion was also offensive to the human dignity of those excluded.

The court then proceeded to a rights limitations exercise under section 36. The respondents had outlined several reasons for the existing welfare policy, including budgetary constraints and immigration policy considerations, but the court was not persuaded that these factors sufficed to justify the limitation imposed on the section 27(1)(c) right of permanent residents. The Social Assistance Act was therefore inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it excluded permanent residents from the social welfare system.

However, the Constitutional Court amended the order of the High Court in respect of remedies. Instead of striking down the relevant provisions of the Social Assistance Act, it ordered that permanent residents should be read into the provisions so that access to social grants would be extended instantly to permanent residents, while remaining available to citizens. Importantly, the Constitutional Court also differed from the High Court in considering the situation of permanent residents as distinct from that of other immigrant populations; it did not endorse the High Court's holding that all residents should be included in the social welfare system.

Minority judgment

Justice Sandile Ngcobo filed a dissenting judgment in which Justice Tholie Madala concurred. Ngcobo held that it was constitutional for the state to exclude permanent residents from access to old-age grants, and that such exclusion constituted a justifiable limitation on section 27(1)(c) rights in pursuit of legitimate policy purposes. However, Ngcobo concurred in the majority's order with respect to child-support grants and child-dependency grants: the exclusion could not be justifiable in the case of children, because section 28 of the Constitution enshrined the paramountcy of the best interests of the child.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of South Africa</span> Supreme and fundamental law of South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It provides the legal foundation for the existence of the republic, it sets out the rights and duties of its citizens, and defines the structure of the Government. The current constitution, the country's fifth, was drawn up by the Parliament elected in 1994 in the South African general election, 1994. It was promulgated by President Nelson Mandela on 18 December 1996 and came into effect on 4 February 1997, replacing the Interim Constitution of 1993. The first constitution was enacted by the South Africa Act 1909, the longest-lasting to date. Since 1961, the constitutions have promulgated a republican form of government.

<i>Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie</i> South African legal case

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

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.

The Judicial Service Commission is a body specially constituted by the South African Constitution to recommend persons for appointment to the judiciary of South Africa.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<i>Du Toit v Minister for Welfare and Population Development</i> South African legal case

Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which granted same-sex couples the ability to jointly adopt children. LGBT people had already been able to adopt children individually, but only married couples could adopt jointly; the decision was handed down in September 2002, four years before same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa. The court ruled unanimously that the statutory provisions limiting joint adoption to married couples were unconstitutional, and the resulting order amended the law to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married couples.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."

"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."

Daniels v Campbell NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2003, with judgment handed down on 11 March 2004. The applicant was a woman married in terms of Muslim rites, whose husband had died intestate. The court noted that Muslim marriages were not recognised in South African law. It concluded that this violated section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant could inherit. The ambit of this judgment was restricted to de facto monogamous Muslim marriages; it was extended to polygamous Muslim marriages in Hassam v Jacobs. In this Context the word "spouses" was questioned

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; SA Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the RSA and Another was an important case in South African customary law.

<i>Investigating Directorate: SEO v Hyundai Motors</i> South African legal case

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others; In Re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others v Smit NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on March 16, 2000, with judgment handed down on August 25. Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ were the judges.

Barkhuizen v Napier is an important case in South African contract law, decided by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2007, having been heard on 4 May 2006. The judges were Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J.

<i>Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education</i> South African legal case

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Constitutional Court, by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ, on 4 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 18 August. FG Richings SC appeared for the appellant, and MNS Sithole SC for the respondent.

<i>Coetzee and Matiso</i> 1995 South African legal case

Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case in South African law, with an especial bearing on civil procedure and constitutional law. It concerned the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act. It was heard, March 6, 1995, in the Constitutional Court by Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann J, Didcott J, Kentridge AJ, Kriegler J, Langa J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J and Sachs J. They delivered judgment on September 22. The applicant's attorneys were the Legal Resources Centres of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. Attorneys for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee application were the State Attorneys of Cape Town and Johannesburg, and Du Plessis & Eksteen for the Association of Law Societies. IMS Navsa SC appeared for the applicants in both matters, D. Potgieter for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee matter, and JC du Plessis for the Association of Law Societies.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO; Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO 2005 (2) SA 530 (C) is an important case in South African administrative law. However, note that this case went on appeal, first to the Supreme Court of Appeal and thereafter to the Constitutional Court, where the various judgments of Chaskalson, Ngcobo, Sachs, Moseneke and others had far-reaching effects on administrative law in South Africa. This article discusses the first hearing of this matter in the Cape Provincial Division. The final judgment is listed on SAFLII as Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] ZACC 14.

Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs is an important case in South African law, particularly in the areas of constitutional litigation, constitutional law and immigration law. The applicants were South African citizens and their spouses, who were neither citizens nor permanent residents of South Africa. The case examined the constitutional right of spouses to cohabit and the need for Parliament, when granting government officials powers that touch on constitutional rights, to lay down proper guidelines.

<i>Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration</i> Joint appeal of three cases

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents have acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.

References

  1. ↑ Sloth-Nielsen, Julia (1 July 2004). "Extending access to social assistance to permanent residents". ESR Review. 5 (3): 9–11. doi:10.10520/AJA1684260X_81.
  2. ↑ Mpedi, Letlhokwa George (19 September 2022). "Charity Begins – But Does Not End – At Home: Khosa v Minister of Social Development; Mahlaule v Minister of Social Development 2004 6 BCLR 569 (CC)". Obiter. 26 (1). doi:10.17159/obiter.v26i1.14819. ISSN   2709-555X.
  3. ↑ Hoffmann v South African Airways (CCT17/00) [2000] ZACC 17; 2001 (1) SA 1; 2000 (11) BCLR 1211 ; [2000] 12 BLLR 1365 (CC).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.