Court Orders City Of Joburg To Restore Security At Six Emergency Housing Sites
Written on
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has directed the City of Joburg to restore security at six temporary emergency accommodation buildings housing about 600 people, after the services were withdrawn without notice in March 2026.
The City of Joburg has been directed to comply with a court order requiring it to restore security measures at six temporary emergency accommodation facilities housing about 600 people.
The ruling follows a dispute over the metropolitan municipality's decision to withdraw security and access-control services from the city-owned buildings, despite residents' concerns about safety and the risk of the properties being hijacked. Many of the residents had been placed in the buildings under earlier court orders intended to prevent homelessness.
The municipality had provided security at the facilities for several years before withdrawing those services on 1 March 2026. According to a judgment delivered by the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on 1 October 2026, the withdrawal took place without prior notice to or consultation with the affected residents.
An order on 3 August 2026 had directed the City of Joburg to take “reasonable steps” to provide adequate and effective security at the facilities within 14 days, pending the final outcome of the broader legal dispute. Rather than complying, the municipality filed an application for leave to appeal on 31 August, arguing that the appeal automatically suspended the interim order.
Residents, together with the Inner City Federation and other applicants, returned to court seeking to compel compliance and to have the city declared in contempt. They also asked for a R1 million fine against the municipality, suspended on condition that it complied, together with an order that the city pay their legal costs.
Judge Leicester Rock Adams found that the 3 August order remained operational and that the municipality's application for leave to appeal had not suspended it, describing the language of the ruling as “unequivocally interim.” The applicants are seeking a final declaration that the city's removal of the security services was unlawful, as well as an order compelling its permanent restoration; those issues remain for final determination.