Sixaso v MEC of the Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape Province (2005) JOL 13878 (SE)

Findings: Applicant complained that her application for a maintenance grant was not processed by the respondents. However, the receipt given to the applicant when she made her application referred to a child support grant and not a maintenance grant. The Court therefore presumed her reference to an application for a maintenance grant as erroneous. Court dismissed application reasoning that the application is fatally defective as it could not approach the matter on the basis of whether the respondent had defaulted in not processing a child support grant because such a cause of action had not been placed before the Court.