- About 600 residents took legal action after security was removed from six Temporary Emergency Accommodation facilities in Johannesburg.
- The City said its pending leave to appeal application meant that the August interim order for security measures was automatically suspended.
- The judge decided that the order is still in force but dismissed a separate application to hold the City in contempt.
The City of Johannesburg must comply with an interim order that requires security measures at six Temporary Emergency Accommodation facilities even though it has applied for leave to appeal.
Judge LR Adams made the order in the High Court in Johannesburg on 1 October 2026 after an urgent application by the Inner City Federation and residents of the affected buildings. The group of around 600 people includes those living at Chelsea Two Star Hotel, Old Perm, MBV1, Fraser House, a property in City and Suburban and Skhosana Court.
The dispute started after the City removed security staff from the buildings on 1 March 2026 without warning or speaking to residents first. The residents said the lack of access control created a serious risk of hijacking.
When efforts to talk to the City went nowhere, the residents launched an urgent court application. On 3 August 2026, Acting Judge M van Nieuwenhuizen ordered the City to take reasonable steps to provide proper and effective security, including access control, and to report back on what had been done.
City argues appeal suspended the order
The City applied for leave to appeal the August order on 31 August 2026. It then argued that the order was effectively final and that its appeal had automatically suspended it.
The residents disagreed and asked the court to clarify the legal position under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. They also wanted the City to be held in contempt and asked that Municipal Manager Floyd Brink, Executive Mayor Sello Enoch Dada Morero and Executive Director of Human Settlements Khayalethu Qgibitole be added to the proceedings.
The City and other respondents opposed the application, saying it was not urgent, that the August order was final and therefore suspended, that the contempt application was flawed and that adding more people to the case was not the right procedure.
Judge Adams disagreed, saying that since the original application was urgent, enforcing the order was also urgent.
Judge finds order remains enforceable
The key question was whether the August order was an interim interlocutory order under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act or a final order under Section 18. Judge Adams found that it was an interim order.
The order was clearly given pending an outcome in the main case or until the court made another order. It also expected the matter to return to court and for the City to report on what it had done to comply. The judge said the order did not finally settle the residents’ rights or decide if the City’s removal of security was unlawful or unconstitutional. Those questions still need to be resolved.
The court also rejected the City’s argument that the order was final just because compliance might cost money or require changes to municipal policing and procurement. Judge Adams said that an interim order does not become final just because it requires action or spending. The City’s appeal application did not suspend the August order.
Contempt application dismissed
The residents wanted the court to find the City in contempt and impose a R1 million fine, suspended as long as the City complied with the August order. Judge Adams refused to grant that request. The court explained that civil contempt must involve non-compliance that is wilful and in bad faith.
Although the City misunderstood the legal effect of its appeal application, the judge found it genuinely believed the order was suspended. The contempt application was dismissed.
Senior officials ordered to assist compliance
However, the court added Brink, Morero and Qgibitole as respondents and told them to take all reasonable steps to make sure the City complies with the August order.
Judge Adams agreed that there was a good reason to add these officials. The judge noted that municipal officials can be joined when their roles are relevant to putting court orders into effect.
The court ordered the City and the other respondents to pay the residents’ legal costs for the Section 18 application, including the costs of two lawyers, one of whom was Senior Counsel.
The court declared that the important parts of the 3 August order are still in effect and can be enforced while the City’s appeal applications are still pending. The main question of whether the residents are entitled to security and whether the City was wrong to remove it still needs to be decided in the main case.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
