Latest news with #SeriLawClinic
The Citizen
24-04-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Waste picking definition swings SCA judgment against municipality
An eviction dispute has ended in the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that waster pickers are reclaimers, not recyclers. 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
SowetanLIVE
23-04-2025
- Politics
- SowetanLIVE
SCA rules for evicted reclaimers that they have a right to earn a living
To do this work, which was their sole source of income, the occupiers had built shacks on the Midrand property, where they resided with their families. The City had identified a site at Kya Sands informal settlement as the relocation destination acceptable to the City and occupiers in 2022. 'However, the City imposed a condition for relocation to Kya Sands, that the occupiers would not be allowed to conduct their waste picking activities on the identified site.' The occupiers objected to that condition, leading to the high court ordering that the occupiers' new temporary accommodation allow them to store their goods. On appeal, the City argued that the 'right to earn a living' was essentially a 'commercial interest' and was not relevant to the determination of what was just and equitable in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Pie Act). The City also said the Pie Act did not afford an unlawful occupier the right to choose where they wished to live, upon eviction. It also said the collection, sorting and storing of material from waste by the occupiers was an unlawful activity, as it was conducted in an area zoned 'special', contrary to the relevant zoning regulations. The occupiers submitted that the eviction would not be just and equitable if it did not take into account their means of earning a living. They needed to be relocated close to areas which created high value waste for them to collect, store and sell extracted recyclable material to the recycling companies. They also contended that the City had an obligation to act reasonably, as the right to earn a living was a component of the right to dignity. In its judgment, the SCA said the City's view was contradicted by a letter dated September 26 2022, from the city's attorneys, addressed to Seri Law Clinic, which represented the occupiers. The letter stated that: 'The City has endeavoured (as an indulgence to your clients) to find TEA (temporary emergency accommodation) that would cater for your client's needs. In this respect, and coincidentally, erf 128 Kya Sands is situated next to a recycling facility.' Mothle said both the SCA and the Constitutional Court have recognised that the right of occupiers to earn a living was a relevant factor to be considered by a court in terms of the Pie Act. Mothle said the City misconstrued the conduct of the occupiers as recyclers, when in effect, they were reclaimers who collected and sold waste material to recyclers for re-use. '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,' Mothle said. TimesLIVE
