The early morning queue outside the SASSA office in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, stretches for nearly half a kilometer. I’ve been here since 5:30 AM, talking to grant recipients about yesterday’s High Court ruling that finally confirmed the increase to the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant that millions of South Africans depend on.
“I heard about it on the radio last night,” says Nomvula Mbatha, a 43-year-old mother of three who has been receiving the SRD grant since 2020. “People in my community were messaging each other, asking if it’s really true this time. We’ve heard promises before, you know.”
The skepticism is understandable. For nearly two years, the grant increase has been caught in a bureaucratic and legal limbo, with government announcements followed by delays, budget concerns, and finally a court challenge that left millions of vulnerable South Africans uncertain about whether the much-needed financial boost would ever materialize.
Yesterday’s landmark High Court ruling changed that, confirming that the increase will indeed be implemented and, crucially, that recipients will receive back payments dating to when the increase was first approved by Parliament. For people like Nomvula, this represents not just a victory against poverty but a rare acknowledgment that their struggles matter in a system that often seems designed to overlook them.
The Court’s Decision: A Definitive Ruling
The Pretoria High Court’s ruling was unambiguous in its conclusions. In a comprehensive 58-page judgment, Justice Thabang Mokgoro dismissed the Treasury’s application to further delay implementation of the grant increase, stating that “administrative convenience cannot take precedence over the constitutional rights of the most vulnerable members of our society.”
The case stemmed from a challenge brought by a coalition of civil society organizations, including the Black Sash, the Social Justice Coalition, and the Assembly of the Unemployed, against the National Treasury’s repeated delays in implementing the increase that had been approved by Parliament and signed into law by the President.
At issue was Treasury’s claim that the fiscal impact of the increase had not been adequately budgeted for and that immediate implementation would threaten fiscal stability. The court rejected this argument, noting that Parliament had specifically allocated funds for the increase in the most recent budget adjustments.
“The evidence before this court clearly demonstrates that the necessary allocations have been made by the legislative branch,” wrote Justice Mokgoro. “The Treasury’s refusal to release these funds represents an overreach of executive power and an impermissible interference with Parliament’s constitutional authority over the national budget.”
The ruling also addressed the human cost of the delays, citing extensive affidavits from grant recipients describing increased food insecurity, inability to afford medicine, and children dropping out of school due to inability to pay for transport or necessary supplies.
“When balancing the claimed administrative inconvenience against the documented suffering of grant recipients, this Court finds the scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of immediate implementation,” the judgment stated.
For legal experts, the ruling represents a significant precedent regarding the justiciability of socioeconomic rights in South Africa. “This judgment reinforces that the right to social security isn’t merely aspirational but creates concrete obligations that the state must fulfill,” explained constitutional law professor Themba Ngcobo from the University of the Western Cape, whom I consulted for analysis of the ruling.
The Numbers Behind the Increase
The confirmed increase will raise the monthly SRD grant amount from R350 to R440 – a 25.7% increase that, while still below what many advocacy groups had campaigned for, represents the first real increase since the grant was initially introduced as an emergency measure during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
For the approximately 8.5 million South Africans currently receiving the grant, this translates to an additional R90 per month – R1,080 annually. The court also ordered that back payments be calculated from April 2023, when the increase was originally meant to take effect, meaning many recipients could receive lump-sum payments of over R1,000 once the ruling is implemented.
While R90 might seem insignificant to middle-class South Africans, for those living in extreme poverty, it can make a substantial difference. Research by the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group indicates that even the minimum nutritional requirements for a single adult cost approximately R760 per month – making the original R350 grant woefully inadequate to address food insecurity.
“The increase won’t lift people out of poverty, but it might mean they can eat for a few more days each month,” noted economist Dr. Ayanda Patel of the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for Social Development. “In communities where grant money circulates locally, it will also provide a small but meaningful economic stimulus.”
The total cost to the fiscus will be approximately R9.18 billion annually – a significant sum, but one that the court noted represents less than 0.5% of the national budget. The judgment pointed out that this amount is dwarfed by recent bailouts to state-owned enterprises and questionable infrastructure projects, suggesting that budgetary constraints were more a matter of priorities than absolute fiscal limitations.
The Human Impact: Voices from the Queue
Back in the SASSA queue, I continue conversations with grant recipients about what the increase will mean for their daily lives. The stories are both heartbreaking in their depiction of hardship and inspiring in their demonstration of resilience.
Thabo Nkosi, a 35-year-old former construction worker who lost his job during the pandemic, explains his careful budgeting: “From the R350, I need R120 for transport to look for work, maybe R50 for data to send job applications online. That leaves less than R200 for food for the whole month. With R440, maybe I can actually eat properly for half the month instead of just a few days.”
For Sibongile Mazibuko, a 29-year-old single mother, the increase means her 6-year-old daughter might be able to participate more fully in school activities. “There are always small costs—a contribution for a school trip, arts supplies, sometimes medicine when she gets sick. The extra R90 won’t cover everything, but it might mean I don’t have to choose between buying food and keeping her in school.”
The back payments are particularly significant for many recipients. Grace Mhlongo, 52, has already planned how she’ll use the expected lump sum: “First, I need to pay back my neighbor who has been lending me money for electricity. Then I want to buy proper shoes for my grandson—his are falling apart. If there’s anything left, maybe I can buy some chickens to start a small business selling eggs.”
These stories reflect the findings of research conducted by the Institute for Economic Justice, which has documented how SRD grant recipients primarily use the money for basic necessities and economic activities that further support their families and communities. According to their surveys, approximately 82% of grant money is spent on food, 43% on utilities like electricity and water, 37% on transportation, and 35% on education-related expenses (with recipients often allocating money to multiple categories).
The Broader Context: South Africa’s Social Security Evolution
The court ruling comes at a critical juncture in South Africa’s ongoing debate about social security and the potential implementation of a Basic Income Grant (BIG). The SRD grant, initially introduced as a temporary emergency measure during COVID-19, has become a de facto permanent feature of the country’s social security landscape through multiple extensions.
“What we’re seeing is the incremental evolution of South Africa’s social security system,” explained Professor Sarah Mosoetsa, a sociologist specializing in poverty and inequality at the University of the Witwatersrand. “The SRD grant emerged from a crisis but has revealed the enormous gap in our social safety net for working-age adults with no income.”
Various government committees and task teams have been exploring the feasibility of transitioning from the SRD grant to a more comprehensive Basic Income Grant. President Ramaphosa’s administration has indicated support for the concept but has cited fiscal constraints as a reason for a gradual approach.
Civil society organizations that supported the court case see the ruling as an important step toward that larger goal. “This judgment establishes that social assistance isn’t a matter of government discretion but a constitutional obligation,” said Thandiwe Zulu, advocacy coordinator at the Black Sash. “It creates a foundation for the eventual implementation of a Basic Income Grant that would provide more comprehensive support.”
The Treasury, however, has expressed concerns about fiscal sustainability. In court documents, officials argued that expanding social grants without corresponding economic growth could lead to a debt crisis that would ultimately harm the very people the grants are meant to help.
Economic analysts remain divided on the issue. “There’s a legitimate debate about fiscal space and sustainability,” noted economist Michael Davies from the Bureau for Economic Research. “But there’s also growing evidence that well-designed social transfers can stimulate economic activity at the local level and provide a foundation for growth that’s more inclusive.”
Implementation Challenges Ahead
While the court ruling is definitive about the requirement to implement the increase, significant logistical challenges remain. SASSA officials I spoke with on condition of anonymity (as they weren’t authorized to speak to media) expressed concerns about the system’s capacity to calculate and distribute back payments efficiently.
“The court has ordered implementation within 30 days, which is extremely ambitious given our current systems and staff capacity,” one regional manager explained. “We’re already dealing with a backlog of new applications and appeals. Adding the recalculation of payments for millions of recipients will stretch our resources to the breaking point.”
The ruling requires SASSA to:
- Implement the increased monthly payment of R440 within 30 days
- Calculate back payments for all current recipients dating to April 2023
- Develop a clear communication plan to inform recipients about the increase and back payments
- Report back to the court within 60 days on implementation progress
For recipients, these logistical challenges mean that while the increase is now legally guaranteed, they may still face weeks or months of uncertainty about exactly when they’ll receive the additional funds.
The Department of Social Development has issued a statement acknowledging the court ruling and committing to compliance, but has not yet provided specific details about implementation timelines beyond the court’s requirements.
SASSA spokesperson Paseka Letsatsi told journalists that the agency is “developing an implementation plan that will ensure the least disruption to current payment schedules while meeting the court’s requirements.” He indicated that current recipients would likely see the increased amount in their next regular payment cycle, while back payments might be distributed in phases to avoid system overloads.
Looking Forward: Political and Policy Implications
The timing of the court ruling has significant political implications, coming just months before national elections. Political analysts suggest that the ruling both helps and complicates the governing ANC’s campaign strategy.
“On one hand, the ANC can claim credit for creating and extending the SRD grant in the first place,” explained political analyst Nomfundo Dlamini. “On the other hand, the fact that implementation required a court order highlights administrative failures that opposition parties will certainly emphasize.”
Opposition parties have indeed seized on the ruling, with the Democratic Alliance arguing that it demonstrates fiscal mismanagement and the Economic Freedom Fighters claiming that the increase remains insufficient to address poverty meaningfully.
Beyond the immediate political calculations, the ruling raises fundamental questions about how social policy decisions are made in South Africa. “This case represents a significant instance of the judiciary essentially forcing the executive to implement a policy approved by the legislature,” noted governance expert Professor Raymond Suttner. “It highlights tensions between different branches of government in addressing socioeconomic rights.”
For policy researchers, the case also demonstrates the growing influence of civil society organizations in shaping social security policy through strategic litigation. “What we’re seeing is the judicialization of social policy,” explained Dr. Liesl Muller, a researcher at the Centre for Human Rights. “When normal democratic and administrative processes fail to deliver, courts become the avenue of last resort for marginalized communities.”
Personal Stories: The Grant in Context
As morning turns to afternoon at the SASSA office in Khayelitsha, I speak with more recipients about how they stretch their grant money to meet multiple needs. Their strategies reveal both remarkable resourcefulness and the brutal reality of choices no one should have to make.
Precious Zwane, 41, pools her grant with neighbors to buy food in bulk. “Five of us who get the grant put our money together and buy a 25kg bag of maize meal, cooking oil, and beans. It works out cheaper than buying small amounts, and we share the cooking to save on electricity. The extra R90 will mean we can maybe add some vegetables or chicken sometimes.”
Joseph Mathebula, 57, hasn’t been able to find work since the factory where he worked for 22 years closed in 2019. “I have diabetes, and sometimes I have to choose between food and medicine. When the medicine runs out, I cut the pills in half to make them last longer. I know it’s not good, but what choice do I have? Maybe with R440 I won’t have to do that so often.”
For younger recipients like Thandeka Nxumalo, 26, the grant represents a tenuous connection to goals and aspirations beyond day-to-day survival. “I’m trying to complete a short online course in bookkeeping, but I need data for that. Some months I can spare a little from the grant, other months it’s impossible. I’m hoping the increase means I can finish my studies faster and find a proper job.”
These personal strategies for survival highlight both the inadequacy of the current grant amount and the critical importance of even small increases for people living on the margins. They also underscore the argument made by many economists that social grants represent not merely consumption expenditure but investments in human capital and economic participation.
A Step Forward, But Much Further to Go
As the day at the SASSA office draws to a close, the mood among recipients is cautiously optimistic. The court victory represents a rare instance where their needs prevailed against bureaucratic and fiscal arguments for delay.
“We’ve learned not to celebrate too early,” says Nomvula, whom I spoke with in the morning. “But yes, this feels like a real win for once. Not just the money, but the fact that someone in power actually listened to our stories.”
The court’s recognition of the human impact of administrative decisions represents a significant affirmation of the lived experiences of grant recipients, who often feel invisible in policy debates dominated by fiscal and technical considerations.
Yet even with the increase, the grant remains well below even the most conservative poverty lines. The current food poverty line in South Africa stands at R663 per person per month, while the lower-bound poverty line (which includes some essential non-food items) is R890. At R440, the increased grant still leaves recipients far short of these minimum thresholds.
“This victory is worth celebrating, but it should also remind us how far we still have to go,” reflected Thandiwe Zulu of the Black Sash. “No one should have to survive on R440 a month in a country with South Africa’s resources. This increase is a step forward, but the journey toward a comprehensive social security system that respects human dignity is still long.”
As I leave the SASSA office, the queue has barely diminished. People will continue waiting well into the evening, many having sacrificed a day’s potential income or job-seeking to secure their grant. The court victory doesn’t eliminate these hardships, but it offers something that has been in short supply: recognition that their struggles matter and that the legal system can sometimes work in favor of those with the least power.
For now, that small affirmation, along with the promise of R90 more each month, will have to be enough. The broader battles over South Africa’s approach to poverty and inequality—and the role of social assistance within that approach—continue, with this court ruling representing not an end point but a significant milestone in an ongoing journey.
Also Read –
SASSA Announces Release of R360 SRD Grant and Payment Dates For March 2025