Read more
An eviction dispute has ended in the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that waster pickers are reclaimers, not recyclers.
Waste pickers at a recycling depot near Johannesburg. Picture: Nigel Sibanda
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled in favour of waste pickers wrongfully labelled as recyclers.
The definition of the terms proved critical for the court when ruling on an eviction appeal involving 70 waste entrepreneurs.
The City of Johannesburg will now have 60 days to find alternative accommodation for the trolley dashers that would not infringe on their right to earn a living.
R456 million development stalled
The owners of the Midrand land occupied by the waste pickers launched the eviction process in 2019 and were granted the eviction in 2023, subject to the city finding a suitable alternative living area.
During engagements between 2019 and 2023, the city discussed locations with the waste pickers, but they declined suggested areas as they wished to continue their waste sorting endeavours.
A section of land in Randburg was tentatively agreed upon, but the waste pickers ultimately declined it because the land’s zoning would prevent them from sorting waste on the premises.
In their SCA appeal, the city argued that zoning bylaws and the ability to find employment were not conditions of temporary relocation.
Additionally, the waste pickers were occupying land that was subject to a R456 million commercial development, which stalled due to their presence.
‘Several stages of work’
The SCA’s judgment delivered on Wednesday hinged on the term used to describe the land occupiers in correspondence between the parties.
In a letter sent by the city to those representing the waste pickers — Seri Law Clinic — the city stated it was not obliged to cater to “your client’s recycling activities”.
An expert opinion provided to the court defended the waste pickers, stating that the task was characteristic of gravely unequal societies.
“Waste pickers perform several stages of work before they sell materials they have salvaged,” the export report read.
“This is the bottom level of the global recycling value chain and many actors seek to extract profits before the final sale of the materials for recycling,” it continued.
Using previous Constitutional Court judgments and the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the scales tipped in favour of the waste pickers.
Waste picking not recycling
In delivering the judgment, the court stressed that the dispute was not about relocation but about the ability to earn a living.
The SCA’s judgment determined that the waste pickers’ activities amounted to a form of employment and that denying them that right would be unconstitutional.
“First, the city misconstrued the conduct of the occupiers as recyclers, when in effect, they are reclaimers who collect and sell waste material to recyclers for reuse,” the judgment read.
“Second, the city sought to rely on the municipal zoning as prohibiting the sorting and storing of waste material, when it does not do so.
“Third, the city’s condition is not supported by any law or policy and is thus arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. In the circumstances, the appeal must fail.”
Download our app
