Joburg traders are living through a tense moment as the City of Johannesburg races to meet a Gauteng High Court deadline to verify and register informal vendors in the CBD.
The court found that recent enforcement operations, which saw traders removed and stock confiscated, unlawfully violated the right to earn a living. It then ordered the City to fast-track a proper registration and allocation process instead of simply clearing pavements.
Behind the legal language lies a simple reality: thousands of people depend on street trading for survival. The outcome of this deadline will decide whether they return to work with formal protection, or remain exposed to sudden eviction and uncertainty.
Joburg traders in the inner city have dealt with enforcement for years, but the latest “clean-up” drives went further than many expected. City officials and metro police targeted congested blocks, dismantled makeshift stalls and removed vendors they said were operating illegally or outside demarcated areas.
For many, the clampdown meant losing not only trading space but also their entire stock. Some had bought goods using loans or credit from wholesalers, leaving them with debt but no income stream. Others described being chased away without any written notice or realistic alternative sites.
These actions triggered a backlash led by trader associations and public interest lawyers. They argued that the City could not rely on broad statements about “order” to ignore detailed rules in by-laws and national legislation. The matter was taken to court to stop further removals and force a lawful process.
The High Court ruling changed the trajectory of the dispute. The judge held that the municipality had not followed the proper legal framework governing informal trading and business licensing. Instead of treating each trader’s position on its merits, officials had used sweeping operations that disregarded individual rights.
The court then issued a clear directive: the City must verify the affected vendors, register or re-register them where appropriate, and allocate trading spaces in line with existing by-laws and the Businesses Act. To prevent ongoing delay, the order was paired with a tight deadline.
This decision did not say the City may never remove vendors. It said removal has to follow rules, respect due process and recognise that livelihoods are not expendable. That distinction is now central to how officials must act.
To comply with the order, the City opened registration points where listed traders could present identity documents, old permits, rental receipts or other proof that they had been operating in the CBD. Officials then used this information to decide who qualified for re-registration and which sites could be allocated.
The process, however, has been uneven. Some vendors arrived early with carefully kept files, eager to formalise their status and get back to work. Others arrived with only a few scraps of paper after losing belongings during raids. A portion of the list did not appear at all, either because they had moved, could not be reached, or were too fearful to engage.
This patchy response adds to the pressure. The court expects a genuine effort to regularise those affected, not a half-hearted exercise that leaves many people invisible on paper.
Informal trade in Johannesburg is governed by a mix of municipal by-laws and national legislation. These rules allow the City to declare trading zones, issue permits, and limit the number of stalls in crowded areas. They also set out procedures for cancelling permits or moving traders in a lawful, fair manner.
For years, many vendors have operated within this system. They paid permit fees, accepted conditions on where they could stand, and adapted when zones were changed. Others entered the market more informally, filling gaps when official systems were slow or full.
The recent judgment effectively reminds officials that these rules cut both ways. If traders must respect permit conditions, the City must also respect the processes it wrote into law. Shortcuts, blanket enforcement and unexplained confiscations clash with the legal framework the municipality itself created.
A significant number of inner-city vendors are migrants from elsewhere in Africa. Some hold permanent residency, some have asylum or refugee documents, and others are undocumented or in the middle of status applications. This complex reality shapes how they respond to official notices.
When enforcement teams began removing stalls, many migrants feared more than just loss of income. They worried about being detained or deported if questions were asked about their paperwork. That fear did not vanish when the court later ordered verification.
As registration centres opened, some traders stayed away, assuming that presenting themselves would expose gaps in their documentation. Advocates now find themselves explaining that the court process is about trading rights, not immigration control, while still acknowledging that the two issues are deeply entangled in daily life.
City planners face real challenges in the inner city. Pavements are narrow, pedestrian numbers are high, and different uses compete for limited space. Emergency access routes and building entrances must stay open. Formal businesses complain about blocked doorways and increased congestion.
Officials therefore argue that regulation is necessary to keep the CBD functioning. Demarcated trading bays, limits on numbers, and clear rules about where stalls may stand are all part of this plan. Without such measures, they say, movement becomes chaotic and safety is compromised.
The court ruling does not dispute the need for planning. It questions the tools used. Instead of sudden clear-outs, a more measured approach would identify legitimate vendors, adjust layouts, and create a balance between movement, safety and economic activity. That is the planning challenge now facing the municipality.
The conflict around inner-city trading has quickly taken on a political tone. Some leaders frame themselves as champions of order, promising “clean” streets and tighter enforcement against unregulated businesses. Others position themselves as defenders of the poor, condemning removals and highlighting the human cost.
Media coverage reflects this divide. One story emphasises crime, congestion and counterfeit goods. Another focuses on families losing their only source of income. Social media adds heat, with residents debating whether traders bring vitality or chaos to the CBD.
Joburg traders watch these narratives with frustration. For them, the issue is practical: whether they will be allowed to operate without harassment, and whether rules will be applied fairly rather than selectively. Political messaging will matter less than concrete changes on the ground.
Throughout the dispute, civil society groups have played a crucial role. Public interest law organisations have taken cases to court, argued for the protection of livelihood rights and monitored the City’s compliance with previous judgments. Trader associations have gathered information, organised protests and helped members navigate complex legal processes.
Faith-based and community groups, meanwhile, have offered food parcels, rent support or storage for salvaged stock when incomes collapsed. These networks help buffer the shock of sudden evictions, especially for households already living close to the poverty line.
Their involvement also increases accountability. By documenting what happens during raids and registration exercises, they create a public record that can be tested against official statements. That record often shapes how judges see the situation when disputes reach court.
Once the court deadline passes, the real test begins. The City will present figures on how many traders have been verified, how many permits have been granted or renewed, and how many trading bays have actually been assigned. Those numbers will be studied closely by lawyers, activists and vendors themselves.
If a large share of affected traders are back in business with clear documentation, it will signal that the judgment is having practical impact. If many remain unregistered or without space, pressure will grow for further legal action or political intervention.
The path chosen will shape how the CBD evolves: as a tightly controlled space that squeezes out small operators, or as a managed but inclusive environment where low-income entrepreneurs have a recognised role in the city’s future.
The court intervened because Joburg traders were removed through operations that failed to follow the legal procedures set out in by-laws and national business legislation.
No. The ruling confirms the City may regulate Joburg traders, but it must do so lawfully, transparently and with respect for the right to earn a livelihood.
If the City fails to meet its obligations toward Joburg traders, rights groups can return to court to seek further orders or possible findings of non-compliance.
The struggle involving Joburg traders has become a powerful test of how cities treat the people who keep their streets economically alive. The High Court’s deadline forces Johannesburg to shift from blunt clean-up campaigns to a more careful, law-based approach that recognises trading as a lifeline for thousands of families.
