Jikeka v South African Social Security Agency

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM)

Jikeka v South African Social Security Agency
2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM)

2011 (6) SA p628

Citation	2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM)
Case No	2340/2009
Court	Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Judge	Dawood J
Heard	August 12, 2010
Judgment	September 23, 2010
Counsel	AS Zono (attorney) for the applicant.; GH Bloem for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Administrative law — Administrative action — Procedure to be followed — Furnishing of reasons — Time limit — Prescribed 90-day time limit — Administrator having 90 days within which to furnish reasons — Bringing of application to court to compel furnishing of reasons before expiry of 90-day C period premature — Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, s 5(2).

Headnote : Kopnota

In terms of s 5(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 a functionary or administrator has 90 days within which to furnish written D reasons for an administrative decision he or she has made. Where an application to court for an order compelling the furnishing of such reasons is made before the expiry of 90 days, that application is brought before the court prematurely. (Paragraph [15] read with para [10] at 630G – 631G and 632H – I, paraphrased.)

Cases Considered

Annotations: E

Reported cases

Sikutshwa v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape, and Others 2009 (3) SA 47 (TkH): not followed.

Unreported cases

Qwele v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development and Another (TkHC case No 861/2004, 26 April 2005): approved and applied F

Sapepa v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development and Another; Fetsha v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development and Another (TkHC case Nos 855/2004 and 864/2004, 17 February 2005): not followed.

Statutes Considered

Statutes G

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, s 5(2): see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2010/11 vol 5 at 1-253.

Case Information

Application in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 H for an order compelling the furnishing of reasons for an administrative decision. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

AS Zono (attorney) for the applicant.

GH Bloem for the respondent.

Cur adv vult. I

Postea (September 23).

Judgment

Dawood J:

[1] The applicant brought an application against the respondent seeking J an order in the following terms:

2011 (6) SA p629

Dawood J

'(a)

That the respondent's refusal/failure to give applicant written A reasons for its decision to reject applicant's application for disability grant be and is hereby declared unlawful, invalid of no force and effect and accordingly be set aside.

(b)

That the respondent be and is hereby directed to give applicant adequate written reasons for its decision to reject applicant's B application for disability grant forthwith.

(c)

That the respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay costs of this application on an attorney and client scale.

(d)

Further and/or alternative relief.' C

[2] The facts of this matter are briefly as follows:

(i)

The applicant brought an application for a disability grant and such application was refused, on 24 October 2008, in writing, apparently without any reasons being furnished for such refusal.

(ii)

A letter was sent by her attorney on 3 November 2009 giving the D respondent one calendar month within which to furnish reasons.

(iii)

The application was launched on 11 December 2009, at a time when no reasons were furnished.

(iv)

The respondent informed the applicant of its reasons, in writing on 12 January 2010, prior to filing its answering affidavit.

(v)

The applicant accepted the reasons. E

(vi)

The only outstanding issue between the parties is the question of costs.

[3] One of the defences raised by the respondent was that the application was launched two months prematurely and that the respondent had until approximately 5 February 2010 to furnish reasons. F

[4] A determination of this issue will dispose of this application and it would accordingly not be necessary to go into the merits or demerits of the other issues or arguments raised by both parties.

[5] The following provisions, inter alia, of the relevant Acts provide G guidelines regarding the approach to be adopted in determining this matter:

(a)

Section 14(3)(b) of the Social Assistance Act 13 of 2004 reads as follows:

'(b)

If the applicant does not qualify for social assistance in terms H of this Act, the Agency must in writing at the applicant's address or other point of contact stated in the...