South African Informal Traders Forum and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others; South African National Traders Retail Association v City of Johannesburg and Others

Over 1 200 informal traders, all lawfully authorised under the City of Johannesburg’s Informal Trading By-Laws and Trading Policy, were forcibly removed from their trading stalls in Johannesburg’s inner city during September and October 2013 as part of the City’s ‘Operation Clean Sweep’. The Johannesburg Metropolitan Police confiscated goods and dismantled stalls without distinguishing between lawful and unlawful traders. Although the City later agreed to a verification and re-registration process and verified the applicants as lawful traders, it refused to allow them to return to their trading sites and instead proposed relocating them to unspecified alternative areas. The City conceded that it had not followed the procedures required by section 6A of the Businesses Act 71 of 1991. The traders sought urgent interim relief in the High Court to resume trading pending a review of the City’s decisions. The High Court struck the application from the roll for lack of urgency. The applicants then approached the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis.

Leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court was granted. The appeal was upheld. The High Court order was set aside. Pending the determination of Part B of the review application, the City and its officials were interdicted from interfering with the applicants’ trading at the locations they occupied prior to their removal. The City respondents were ordered to pay the applicants’ costs in both the High Court and the Constitutional Court, including the costs of two counsel.

This case is a leading authority on the protection of lawful informal traders and the requirement that municipalities act lawfully and procedurally when regulating street trading. It affirms that unlawful evictions by local government violate constitutional principles of legality, dignity and livelihood. The judgment is also significant for clarifying when the Constitutional Court will hear urgent appeals against interlocutory orders and emphasises access to justice where interim harm would render later relief meaningless.