The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v. Occupiers [of Portion 9[...] of the Farm Randjesfontein No 4[...]] and Others (Case no 636/23) [2024] ZASCA 47 (23 April 2025)

Nature of the Case

The South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that Respondents (“Occupiers”) must be permitted to conduct their “waste-picking” extraction activities at their relocation site following their eviction. By suggesting that evicting and relocating the Occupiers to a site where they would not be able to earn their living as “waste pickers” would further the legacy of apartheid spatial planning, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the right of an occupier to earn a living is a factor to be considered when determining the just and equitability requirement in an eviction proceeding.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

Unfortunately, the municipality failed to comply with the court order because they did not provide the required temporary emergency accommodation within the 60-day period as was required by the Court. As of this writing, more than six months have passed since the order was granted and the waste pickers are still residing on the land where they were staying when this eviction application was launched. As evicting the waste pickers is conditional upon providing the temporary emergency accommodation, SERI has written to the city in relation to the relocation plans and how the City plans to fulfill the order.The City has indicated that it wishes to appeal to the Constitutional Court. However, to date SERI has not received any appeal pleadings and the time limit to launch an appeal has elapsed. SERI is currently working on an enforcement application and a contempt proceeding against the City.

Significance of the Case

The case is significant because: (1) it reaffirmed in clear terms that the right to make a living must be part of the just and equitability enquiry in a relocation process; (2) the court makes a cardinal differentiation between waste pickers and waste recyclers; (3) the court reaffirmed the position that the right to dignity is important when determining the temporary emergency accommodation; (4) the court ruled that international law is important when interpreting socio-economic rights; and (5) the court has discretion when interpreting the just and equitability requirement.

Groups Involved in the Case

SERI; RC Ishmail Attorneys, Bloemfontein; WR Mokhare SC; Symington de Kock Inc., Bloemfontein; the International Commission of Jurists (as Amicus Curiae)

Secondary Materials:

Jarryd Westerdale, Waste picker definition swings SCA judgment against municipality, The Citizen, 2025; available at https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/waste-picking-definition-swings-sca-judgment-against-municipality/.

Ohene Yaw Ampofo-Anti, Evicted waste pickers must be allowed to earn a living, court rules, Public Interest Legal Services in South Africa, 2025; available at https://www.pils.org.za/evicted-waste-pickers-must-be-allowed-to-earn-a-living-court-rules/.

Zelda Venter, Right of city waste pickers under spotlight, IOL, 2025; available at https://iol.co.za/pretoria-news/news/2024-08-29-right-of-city-waste-pickers-under-spotlight/.

For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.