Introduction
Joburg traders in the Johannesburg CBD now sit at the heart of a major legal and political clash.
Earlier this month, the Gauteng High Court ordered the City of Johannesburg to urgently verify, register and allocate trading stalls to more than 500 informal vendors who were removed during recent clean-up operations. The court set a strict two-week window, from 4 to 18 November 2025, for the process to be completed and demanded that the City follow its own informal trading by-laws and the national Businesses Act.
The ruling followed aggressive enforcement drives that many traders say destroyed their livelihoods overnight. As the deadline arrives, the outcome will shape how the inner city balances order, legality and survival.
Joburg traders at the centre of a legal turning point
The High Court judgment, delivered by Judge Brad Wanless, marked a significant legal turning point for informal traders in the inner city. The court held that the municipality must conduct an expedited process of verification, registration, re-registration and allocation for the affected vendors.
Importantly, the judge insisted that the process must be “expeditious and transparent” and must comply with the City’s Informal Trading By-Laws and the Businesses Act 71 of 1991. This means officials cannot rely on ad hoc decisions or blanket clear-outs; every enforcement step must fit within a defined legal framework.
The order does not strip the City of its power to regulate street trading. Instead, it puts legal guardrails around how that power is used, making clear that livelihoods cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience.
Joburg traders and the clampdown that sparked the case
The court action came after weeks of enforcement drives in the CBD. City inspectors and Johannesburg Metro Police Department officers removed vendors they said were trading without permits or operating outside designated zones.
During these operations, stalls were dismantled and stock was confiscated. Many vendors claim they had traded in the same spots for years, often after previous rounds of registration, and were given little or no individual notice before being pushed off the pavements. Rights organisations argue that hundreds of livelihoods were cut off in a matter of days.
This pattern echoes earlier citywide clean-up campaigns, where “unsightly” or “illegal” trading was targeted with sweeping removals. The latest round, however, triggered immediate legal resistance, ensuring that this time a court would step in before the damage became permanent.
Joburg traders and the High Court’s instructions to the City
The core of the judgment lies in its specific instructions to municipal officials. The court ordered the City to start the verification process on 4 November and to finalise it by 18 November 2025, giving just two weeks to clean up the administrative mess created by the clampdown.
Officials must check the identities of more than 500 listed informal traders, assess their eligibility under by-laws, and then allocate formal trading stalls or spaces in the CBD.
Judge Wanless also stressed procedural fairness. He warned that traders’ rights cannot be undermined through “administrative confusion or selective enforcement”, reminding the City that the rule of law binds both government and residents.
In effect, the court turned what was previously a chaotic enforcement process into a tightly regulated, court-supervised exercise.
Joburg traders caught between by-laws and basic rights
At the heart of the dispute is a clash between regulation and survival. Municipal by-laws allow the City to demarcate trading areas, issue permits and remove vendors who operate illegally. But the Constitution protects the right to human dignity and the ability to earn a living, and courts have held that these rights are directly affected when street vendors are arbitrarily removed. In earlier cases, including the famous Operation Clean Sweep judgment, the Constitutional Court found that blanket removals of informal traders in Johannesburg violated the Businesses Act and disregarded their basic rights, rendering thousands destitute.
The new ruling builds on that jurisprudence. It signals that the City may enforce its rules, but only if it does so in a way that respects both national law and the livelihoods that depend on street trading.
Joburg traders and the verification drive on the ground
On paper, the verification process looks straightforward: traders appear at a designated venue, present identity documents, old permits or other proof of trading, and are then assessed for re-registration and stall allocation.
In practice, the rollout has been uneven. According to city officials and media reports, only a fraction of the more than 500 traders listed in the judgment initially came forward. Early figures from SABC News suggested that fewer than 100 traders had registered in the first week.
Later updates from Mayor Dada Morero indicated that around 211 linked traders had eventually presented themselves for verification, with stalls already allocated to many of them and finalisation pending for people with asylum-seeker or refugee documentation.
The numbers highlight both progress and gaps in implementing the court’s order.
Joburg traders, migrant status and fear of registration
One reason given for the low initial turnout is fear. Many of the affected street vendors are foreign nationals, including refugees and asylum seekers, who worry that approaching city offices could put them at risk of detention or deportation if their documentation is incomplete.
Civil society groups say this climate of distrust was worsened by the earlier clampdown, when enforcement teams arrived without clear communication about traders’ rights or registration options. For some vendors, the safest option was to disappear rather than engage with an authority they experience as hostile.
The court order, however, does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to fair process. It requires the City to treat all eligible traders in line with the law, while migration rules remain a separate framework.
Managing this overlap between urban management and immigration enforcement will be crucial in rebuilding trust.
Joburg traders, urban order and the City’s perspective
From the City’s side, officials emphasise that they are not “anti-trader”. In statements and media releases, the municipality argues that it needs to regulate street trading to keep pavements safe, prevent obstruction of building entrances and combat the sale of counterfeit goods.
The City says the verification process is part of a broader vision to formalise trading in the inner city. This includes developing new trading facilities, enforcing demarcated areas and ensuring that only authorised vendors operate in busy zones.
Officials also reject claims that the clampdown is linked to preparations for the upcoming G20 Leaders’ Summit, insisting that it forms part of long-term efforts to “clean up” and rejuvenate the CBD.
The challenge will be translating this rhetoric into fair, predictable practice on the streets.
Joburg traders and the broader informal economy stakes
Informal trade is a major employer in South African cities. Studies show that many low-income households rely on street vending as their main or only source of income, especially where formal jobs are scarce.
For vendors selling food, clothing, airtime or small goods, a trading spot in the CBD is more than a location; it is the base of a micro-enterprise that supports entire families. Removing that spot without offering a viable alternative can push people into deeper poverty.
At the same time, formal businesses and some residents complain about congestion, litter and safety concerns around busy trading corridors. City planners are under pressure to create “world-class” urban environments that attract investment.
The High Court ruling forces the City to confront these tensions head-on, rather than managing them through periodic crackdowns.
Joburg traders watching what happens after the deadline
As the 18 November deadline passes, attention turns to what happens next. The City is expected to brief the public and the court on how many traders it has verified, how many stalls have been allocated, and how outstanding cases—especially those involving complex documentation—will be handled.
Rights groups like SERI will closely assess whether the process has been as transparent and fair as the judgment demands. If not, they may return to court to seek further orders or enforcement measures.
For vendors, the key question is simple: are they back at work, legally and without constant fear of removal? The answer will determine whether this court victory feels real on the ground or remains mostly symbolic.
FAQs
Why did the court rule in favour of Joburg traders?
The court ruled in favour of Joburg traders because their removal ignored procedures in the Businesses Act and by-laws, and unlawfully threatened their ability to earn a living.
How many Joburg traders are covered by the verification order?
Around 500 informal vendors are linked to the judgment, and city officials say just over 200 Joburg traders have so far come forward for verification and stall allocation.
Does the ruling stop the City from regulating Joburg traders?
No. The ruling confirms that the City may regulate Joburg traders, but only within the law, with transparent processes that respect traders’ rights and livelihoods.
Conclusion
The struggle involving Joburg traders is about far more than permits and pavement space. It is a test of whether Johannesburg can manage its inner city in a way that respects both the need for order and the basic right to survive through small-scale trade. The High Court has drawn a clear legal line, compelling the City to formalise rather than simply uproot informal vendors.
