Evicting people isn't just about shelter — the SCA says livelihood matters too
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Occupiers of Portion 9 of the Farm Randjesfontein — Supreme Court of Appeal · (636/23) [2025] ZASCA 47
A note on our sourcing
The SAFLII judgment page returned an access error when we tried to fetch it directly. This summary is drawn from the SAHRC's official statement on the ruling rather than the primary judgment text — worth confirming against the full judgment before citing in formal submissions.
What happened
The City of Johannesburg appealed a High Court order requiring it to provide temporary emergency accommodation for a group of waste-picker occupiers, in a location that would let them continue their waste-collection work. The SCA dismissed the City's appeal.
Why it made the news
A landmark result for Gauteng's large waste-picking community, publicly welcomed by the South African Human Rights Commission as strengthening tenure-security protections.
For lawyers & law students
In the PIE Act's 'just and equitable' enquiry, a municipality relocating unlawful occupiers must weigh their ability to continue earning a livelihood, not only whether shelter is provided — broadening what 'meaningful engagement' and suitable alternative accommodation require in eviction litigation.
For citizens
If a municipality evicts you from land you've occupied, it can't simply dump you anywhere — where they resettle you has to let you keep working and earning an income.