Waste picking definition swings SCA judgment against municipality
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.'
NOW READ: SCA sides with Holomisa in R2m defamation case
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
20 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Makate believes ConCourt could've had more conclusive findings in battle with Vodacom
JOHANNESBURG - 'Please call me' inventor, Nkosana Makate, said he believes that the Constitutional Court could have come to a conclusive finding in his battle with telecommunications giant Vodacom. The apex court has remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), setting aside its ruling. ALSO READ: Despite ConCourt setback, 'Please call me' inventor Makate still resilient in battle with Vodacom In a scathing judgment, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the appeals court made several errors in its adjudication of the matter, which resulted in a ruling in Makate's favour. Makate and Vodacom have been in an almost 20-year battle over what is due to Makate over the invention of the 'Please call me' product. In his final judgment before retirement, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga highlighted what he called the SCA's fatal shortcomings in that it did not make its own decision on the issues in the matter. The court has granted Vodacom leave to appeal the SCA's judgment but has also ruled that the matter should go back to the court before a different panel. "It seems to me the just and equitable remedy [77] is for the appeal to be decided on its merits by the court that ought to have decided it. More importantly, in the main, what remains for determination in the appeal are factual questions that do not ordinarily fall for determination by this court." But Makate said he was expecting a different decision. "I think the ConCourt could have finalised the matter. We still had a hearing in the high court, which they could have gone to as well, and ignored the SCA completely. They could have done that." Makate said he remains resilient and sure in his case.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?
This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. Through all of the years I have been lucky enough to be a journalist, there is one fundamental dynamic that has become completely entrenched in our society, and most others. It is that the rich are getting richer while the poor are falling further and further behind. One of the big drivers of this seems to be the way in which salaries for CEOs have really increased in the past few years. Now, I fully expect and understand that someone who is able to create value for themselves and others should be paid well. And I do mean really well. It seems entirely moral to me that people should be paid for doing constructive things. I do wonder though about cases that really involve a rise in technology, or just one insight. So, Mark Zuckerberg has literally created an industry. But he did this as part of technological changes in society. He would not have been able to do it without being American, being at Harvard, and being there when he was. Something similar must have happened in 2022 when soaring platinum prices resulted in the CEO of Sibanye-Stillwater, Neal Froneman, getting paid about R300-million. Now, I could never do what Froneman does. He has a rare combination of skills and the ability to lead a group of people to enable others to make money. And, of course, much of his salary was in the form of shares, their value increased in line with platinum prices immediately after the Covid pandemic. This means that this money was not paid out directly by the company, but was the result of the increase in the value of shares he had been given before the rally. The case of The Foschini Group CEO Anthony Thunström is an interesting example. In 2024, he was paid 43% less than the year before because the group missed certain targets. This year, he was paid R45-million because he hit those targets. While he cannot control all of the variables around him, there is something about this that seems intrinsically fairer to me than Froneman's situation, where he benefited hugely from a historic dynamic that lifted platinum prices. That said, he could argue, perhaps, that only he could have ensured his company was able to take such full advantage of that increase. I was thinking about all of this watching the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Nkosana Makate case against Vodacom. He and Vodacom have been arguing for nearly 20 years over how much the network should be paying him for his insight that it should start a 'Please Call Me' service. I really thought today would be the day this case would finally end. I mean, really, how long can one case drag on? Instead, all of the judges found the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had got the case hopelessly wrong. But, being on the Constitutional Court, they also felt they should not have to sift through the arguments and the maths. Now the SCA must do it again, with a new Bench of judges. For me, at the heart of it is: How much can one idea be worth? I can see that, for Zuckerberg, perhaps that idea could be worth a huge amount – he did create something that changed the world. For Elon Musk, perhaps his ideas – around electric cars, rockets and goodness knows what else – will literally save the planet. That must be worth quite a lot. But like Musk and Zuckerberg and Froneman, there are other forces at work in the Makate case. Obviously on the one side is Vodacom, one of our biggest companies with huge resources. It will fight for many years to prevent having to pay out any amounts that go into the billions. While it can appear as if Makate is on his own, in fact at least part of his campaign has been financed through contingency fees with law firms and, during at least one stage, other groups. This means that both sides will fight forever. The stakes are that high. This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. It's true that the Please Call Me service is now old hat, but at the time it was revolutionary. But it was one simple insight into a technology that was evolving very quickly. And MTN already had their own Please Call Me service up and running before Vodacom was able to implement theirs. Should he receive compensation? Sure. Millions? Maybe. Billions? Surely not. Of course, no matter how rich or comfortable we may be, we all have our own financial hopes and dreams. Some of us just want to pay off our bond. Or our kids' school fees. These are all legitimate. And that's why our demands to be properly paid are also entirely legitimate. Even if your first name is Elon, and you are hoping and dreaming of going to Mars. DM
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Nkosana Makate ‘still resilient' as ConCourt overturns billion-rand ruling in battle with Vodacom
In a scathing judgment, Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga described the nearly 20-year legal battle between Nkosana Makate and Vodacom as 'unending litigation' and slammed the Supreme Court of Appeal for multiple errors in its February 2024 ruling, which would have awarded Makate billions for his Please Call Me idea. When Nkosana Makate walked into the corridors of the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 31 July, where Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga was set to deliver his final ruling from the bench, he was in high spirits, hopeful that the court would finally bring an end to his battle with telecommunications giant Vodacom, a fight that had gone on for almost 20 years. Hours later, the court delivered another blow for Makate as it unanimously referred the matter back to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and instructed that a new panel of judges reconsider the case. Delivering a scathing judgment, Madlanga described the almost two-decade legal saga as an unending litigation and said the SCA made several errors in its February 2024 judgment, which would have seen Makate net at least R9-billion. That ruling has now been set aside. 'The Supreme Court of Appeal failed to provide adequate reasons for its judgment and disregarded or was unaware of certain material acts and issues before it,' Madlanga said. WATCH | The Constitutional Court has unanimously ruled in favour of Vodacom, setting aside the 2024 SCA decision that ordered the company to pay Nkosana Makate between 5% and 7.5% of the revenue earned from the service over 18 years. The matter will now return to the SCA. — Nonkululeko Njilo (@Nkulee_Njilo) July 31, 2025 The SCA had ruled that Makate was entitled to be paid 5% to 7.5% of the total revenue of the Please Call Me (PCM) product from March 2001 to the date of judgment, plus interest. This Constitutional Court had previously ordered Vodacom to pay him 'reasonable' compensation, which led Vodacom to offer R47-million. The R9-billion determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal would have 'devastating consequences' for the mobile-network operator, its employees and its investors, Johannesburg-based Vodacom said in its papers. 'Forever resilient' Speaking to journalists after the judgment, Makate said: 'We expected a different decision but we have to abide by the court's decision. We will go to the SCA and it must just relook at the case and provide us with a judgment that will then stand the test.' Asked whether he felt disappointed by the legal system – after years of back-and-forth in his dispute with Vodacom over compensation for the call-back service idea he presented to the company's product development team while working in its finance division in the 2000s – Makate said: 'I think they could have finalised the matter. We still had a hearing at the high court which they could have gone to as well and then ignored the SCA completely.' Makate said he remained resilient and was confident that justice would ultimately be served: 'I am still resilient, I will forever be.' While the case has proven to be financially and emotionally costly, Makate said he would explore all avenues available to him. 'We will do what we have to do,' he said. It was the second time the case was heard by the ConCourt. In 2016, the court affirmed that Makate was the inventor of Please Call Me and ordered Vodacom to enter into good-faith negotiations with him to determine reasonable compensation. However, compensation talks between Makate and Vodacom have been acrimonious as he accused the company of deliberately withholding information about the lucrativeness of Please Call Me. In 2020, the High Court in Pretoria made a similar ruling as it ordered Vodacom to play open cards and disclose financial records relating to the Please Call Me service, including the revenue it has generated for the telecommunications giant. This was considered a victory for Makate, who used the financial records to determine the settlement that Vodacom could shell out for his idea that gave rise to the service. DM
