Introduction
Joburg traders in the inner-city CBD are at the centre of a major legal and political showdown.
After weeks of clampdowns and removals, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ordered the City to urgently verify, register and allocate stalls to informal traders pushed off the streets. The court gave officials just two weeks, from 4 to 18 November 2025, to complete the process.
Rights groups say the evictions violated traders’ livelihoods and ignored constitutional protections. The City insists it was enforcing by-laws and dealing with chaos on pavements.
This article unpacks the core facts, the legal stakes and what the deadline really means for thousands who survive by selling on Johannesburg’s streets.
Joburg traders and the High Court’s two-week deadline
The latest ruling came from Judge Brad Wanless in the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court. He ordered the City to conduct an expedited “verification, registration, re-registration and allocation process” for specific informal traders in the CBD.
The order is precise:
- Start the process on 4 November 2025.
- Finish it by 18 November 2025.
- Follow the City’s Informal Trading By-Laws (2012) and the Businesses Act 71 of 1991.
The case was brought by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI) and trader organisations after recent “clean-up” operations removed vendors from pavements and confiscated stock.
For Joburg traders, this deadline is not just bureaucratic. It is the window in which they either regain legal trading space or risk being sidelined again.
Joburg traders and the wave of CBD evictions
In the weeks before the judgment, Joburg traders were hit by a series of enforcement operations in the inner city. Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) officers and City officials targeted stalls and pavements, claiming many vendors lacked permits or operated outside demarcated areas.
SERI and the South African Informal Traders Forum (SAITF) say hundreds of traders were affected, with some estimates pointing to more than 500 people directly impacted. Goods were seized, tables were dismantled, and long-standing trading spots were cleared.
The City framed this as routine enforcement to restore order and tackle illegal trading. Traders, however, described it as a shock “clean-up” that offered no realistic alternatives and left families without income overnight.
This conflict between enforcement and survival is what pushed the dispute into court.
Joburg traders and the court’s view on livelihoods
The court recognised that Joburg traders are not just a “nuisance” to be removed. Their stalls support families, pay rent and feed children.
In its order, the High Court echoed earlier jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court’s Operation Clean Sweep judgment, which held that mass removals of traders without due process violated rights to dignity and livelihood.
Judge Wanless effectively reaffirmed three core principles:
- The City must follow its own by-laws and national legislation.
- Traders with existing or pending rights cannot be swept away in blanket operations.
- Economic survival in the informal sector is a protected interest, not a favour from the municipality.
For many Joburg traders, this ruling validates what they have long argued: regulation is acceptable, but it must be lawful and fair.
Joburg traders, verification and the problem of missing names
The court order focuses on a specific list of around 525 traders identified in the application. The City was told to verify and register these individuals, then allocate stalls or trading spaces to them.
By the first week of the process, however, officials reported that only 71 traders on the list had come forward to register. Many others could not be reached or had left the inner city altogether.
City officials say a significant portion of those on the list appear to be undocumented foreign nationals who fled during inspections and are now fearful of presenting themselves. Trader organisations respond that the climate of fear was created by heavy-handed removals in the first place.
This gap between the court list and the people who can be found makes the verification exercise both urgent and fragile. It shows how quickly vulnerable Joburg traders can disappear from official radar once enforcement intensifies.
Joburg traders and the City’s push for “orderly streets”
From the City’s perspective, the judgment did not strip away its power to regulate. In fact, municipal statements welcomed the court’s confirmation that the City retains authority to manage informal trading in line with law and by-laws.
Officials argue that:
- Pavements in the CBD have become overcrowded.
- Some vendors trade outside designated zones, block entrances, or operate without permits.
- There are ongoing problems with counterfeit goods and crime hotspots around certain stalls.
The verification process is therefore framed as a way to:
- Identify legitimate Joburg traders.
- Confirm residency or immigration status.
- Allocate a limited number of stalls in a more controlled fashion.
The real test will be whether this promise of “order with fairness” is honoured in practice, or whether enforcement pressure simply shifts to those not on the list.
Joburg traders in the shadow of Operation Clean Sweep
This is not the first time Joburg traders and the City have clashed in court. In 2013’s Operation Clean Sweep, thousands of street vendors were abruptly removed from the CBD as part of a mayoral “clean-up” campaign.
The Constitutional Court later ruled that the City had acted unlawfully by:
- Ignoring the Businesses Act and its own by-laws.
- Failing to distinguish between lawfully registered and “illegal” traders.
- Leaving families destitute without a lawful process.
That judgment forced the City to recognise informal traders as rights-holders, not disposable obstacles.
The current ruling shows that, a decade later, similar patterns still surface: quick crackdowns, followed by litigation and court orders reminding the City of its legal duties.
Joburg traders, politics and party responses
The latest ruling has drawn responses across the political spectrum.
Some parties, like the IFP in Gauteng, have welcomed the court’s direction for speedy verification and allocation of stalls, describing it as a victory for both order and livelihoods.
Others have used the situation to criticise the City’s handling of informal trade more broadly, arguing that poor planning, weak consultation and inconsistent enforcement fuel cycles of conflict.
At the same time, inner-city residents and formal businesses have mixed views. Some support stronger regulation of Joburg traders to reduce congestion and improve safety. Others recognise that small street businesses bring life and affordability to the CBD, offering goods and services that many low-income residents rely on.
The court’s ruling forces politicians to confront these tensions in a more structured way.
Joburg traders and the bigger informal economy picture
Informal trade is a major part of South Africa’s urban economy. Studies show that thousands of households in Johannesburg rely on small stalls, street vending and micro-businesses for income, especially where formal jobs are scarce.
For Joburg traders, a permit is not just a piece of paper. It is a licence to survive. Losing a trading spot can mean immediate loss of cash flow and mounting debt.
Urban planners often talk about creating “world-class” cities, but the informal economy raises a hard question: world-class for whom? The court’s intervention suggests that a truly inclusive city must make space for regulated informality rather than trying to sweep it away.
The verification process ordered by the court could, if done properly, become a model for how to balance fair regulation with economic inclusion.
Joburg traders and what the deadline really means
As the 18 November 2025 deadline hits, three things become clear.
First, the City must show the court it has acted in good faith by verifying and registering as many listed Joburg traders as it can reach, and by allocating realistic trading spaces.
Second, rights groups will scrutinise the process, checking whether officials respected constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. If not, further litigation or mediation may follow.
Third, traders themselves will judge the process by a simple measure: can they get back to work, legally and safely, without living in fear of the next round of raids?
The deadline is therefore not an endpoint but a stress test for the City’s commitment to lawful, humane urban management.
FAQs
Why did the court intervene in favour of Joburg traders?
The court intervened because Joburg traders were removed without proper legal process, and the City failed to follow its own by-laws and the Businesses Act when clearing the CBD.
How many Joburg traders are covered by the verification order?
The judgment identified about 525 Joburg traders to be verified, registered and allocated stalls, though only a fraction had come forward during the first week of the process.
Does the ruling stop the City from regulating Joburg traders?
No. The ruling confirms the City may regulate Joburg traders, but only if it acts lawfully, follows by-laws, and respects traders’ rights to earn a living while managing public space.
Conclusion
The battle over Joburg traders is about far more than permits and pavements. It is a test of how a major African city treats its poorest entrepreneurs while pursuing order, safety and regeneration. The High Court’s deadline forces Johannesburg to move from heavy-handed “clean-ups” to rights-based, rules-driven management of the informal economy.