INTRODUCTION

[1] The applicants initially brought this application in two parts, namely, Part A in which the applicants sought interim interdictory relief to inter alia prevent SASSA from taking any steps to implement a tender and Part B being a review of the tender award.

[2] The relief sought in Part A of the notice of motion was not proceeded with and the applicants and the first to third respondents agreed that the review proceedings provided for in Part B of the notice of motion be determined by this court on an expedited basis.

[3] The applicants seeks an order correcting or setting aside the decision of the second respondent to appoint the third respondent as a service provider of the second respondent pursuant to a tender for the provision of payment services for social grants in the entire country (“the tender”). In addition the applicants also seeks the consequent setting aside of the service level agreement entered into between the second and third respondents.

[4] SASSA is established in terms of section 2(1) of the South African Social Security Agency Act, 2004 (Act No 9 of 2004). It is an organ of state in terms of section 239(b)(ii) of the Constitution and a national public entity within the meaning of the PFMA. Its function includes the administering of social assistance in terms of Chapter 3 of the Social Assistance Act, and performing any function delegated to it under the Act; and to collect, collate, maintain and administer such information as is necessary for the payment of social security. See section 4 of the SASSA Act.

[5] The contract arising from the impugned tender is for a five-year period, it’s worth approximately R10 billion, and involves the distribution of social grants worth nearly R500 billion.

[6] The tender concerns the provision of social grants to over 14.8 million people who are the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable members of society, namely, older persons, war veterans, disabled persons, child support grants, grant-in-aid, child support, foster child grants and care dependency grants.

[7] For the sake of convenience, the applicants collectively are referred to as “applicants”. First and second respondent as “SASSA”, third respondent as “CPS”, eighth respondent as “Empilweni” and The Centre for Child Law as “The Centre”

[8] Prior to the tender being awarded to CPS, grants were distributed in the nine Provinces of South Africa in the following way:

8.1 Applicants distributed grants in the Free State, Western Cape, Gauteng and Eastern Cape;

8.2 Empilweni distributed grants in Mpumalanga;

8.3 CPS distributed grants in North-West, KwaZulu-Natal, and part of the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and Northern Cape; and

8.4 in addition to applicants, CPS, and Empilweni, SASSA also had payment agreements with the South African Post Office, First National Bank and Standard Bank in the Eastern Cape; and beneficiaries who elected to be paid at banks of their choice.

[9] SASSA identified weaknesses in the methodology of payment which resulted in, among other deficiencies, duplicated payments, payments to persons who were not beneficiaries and other fraudulent conduct which had an adverse impact on the budget allocated by Parliament for social grants for persons who qualified.

[10] One of the mischief’s SASSA attempted to address in the tender was that beneficiaries receiving payment at designated pay points could not be verified prior to payment. Recipients receiving monies at banks could not be authenticated as correct and this resulted in abuse. Legitimate recipients did not receive payment and fraudsters received payment that they were not entitled to, resulting in substantial financial loss.