Good news for R370 grant recipients!

GOOD news for Sassa beneficiaries!

Beneficiaries of the R370 grant, who have been rejected by Sassa can breathe a sigh of relief.

This after the North Gauteng High Court in Tshwane struck down the R370 grant rules on irregular income and online-only applications, among other things.

The landmark ruling was made on Thursday, 23 January, following a court application by #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice, which challenged some of the regulations made by Sassa.

Some of the regulations stipulated by Sassa were that grant recipients should apply online only and rejected applications from those who receive an irregular income.

According to organisations, about eight million people were denied the R370 grant due to rules and regulations.

Advocacy groups argued in court that restrictive policies excluded many vulnerable South Africans from receiving the grant, which is in violation of Section 27 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to access social security.

While Sassa and the Department of Social Development defended their rules and regulations by stating the online system was easy, people could share phones and apply from the comfort of their homes.

Presiding judge Justice Leonard Twala found that online-only applications should be declared unlawful, recognising that many South Africans lack reliable internet access, ruling that Sassa must also allow in-person applications at its offices.

His second findings were that there’s an unfair definition of “income” and “financial support”.

He stated that regulations used overly strict definitions of “income” and “financial support,” which excluded many people who would otherwise qualify for the grant.

He clarified that income refers to money received regularly from formal or informal employment, business or investments and financial support refers to regular monetary benefits received by a person that aren’t considered income and to which the person has a legal right.

Twala also struck down Sassa’s rule barring unsuccessful applicants from providing new evidence during appeals. He ruled that applicants must be allowed to submit additional information to strengthen their case.

He further deemed unconstitutional regulation requiring applicants’ eligibility to be assessed solely through bank verification, stating that this method unfairly excluded people with insufficient banking activity or irregular income streams.