- The High Court in Pretoria dismissed an application to have three elephants removed from Johannesburg Zoo for rehabilitation and rewilding.
- The judge found the applicants had not established a basis to bypass existing environmental legislation or identified a reviewable administrative decision.
- The application was dismissed without a costs order, and the respondents’ application to strike out parts of the replying affidavit was granted.
A bid to move three elephants from Johannesburg Zoo to a sanctuary has been dismissed, with the High Court in Pretoria finding that the applicants had not established the legal basis needed to challenge their continued captivity.
In a judgment handed down on 16 October 2026, Judge Noluntu Bam dismissed an application brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Michael Fritz, Senior Chief of the South Peninsula Khoi Council.
The applicants sought orders declaring the continued confinement of Lammie, Mopani and Ramadiba unlawful and unconstitutional, and wanted the elephants released for rehabilitation and rewilding.
The elephants’ history at the zoo
Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo holds a permit authorising it to keep the three elephants. Lammie had previously shared the zoo with Kinkel, a wild-born elephant from Botswana who was rescued from culling while still a juvenile. Kinkel died on 4 September 2018.
The judgment records that his death was attributed to sand impaction linked to an injury to his trunk sustained in the wild, which prevented him from avoiding sand while eating. Lammie grieved the loss of her long-time companion. Zoo staff sat with her in her enclosure and read to her, while her training was suspended to allow her time to grieve.
The EMS Foundation and two other organisations began raising concerns about Lammie’s future in September 2018. They argued that elephants’ social structures, intelligence and natural habitat needs made a zoo unsuitable, and advocated placing her in a free-ranging system.
In a subsequent letter, the organisations said the best option was to reintegrate Lammie into a free-range environment so she could spend her remaining years with dignity as a free elephant. The zoo responded that conservation and access to wildlife also had a social equity dimension, noting that many South Africans would otherwise experience treasured wildlife only through television.
It later engaged animal behaviour specialists to assess Lammie and appointed international animal trainer Roy Chilton to assist with training, enrichment and welfare. Mopani and Ramadiba were introduced in 2019 as companions following expert guidance.
The first applicant, Animal Law Reform South Africa, and the third applicant, Chief Fritz, were not involved in the earlier correspondence.
Applicants’ concerns about welfare and culture
The applicants relied on expert evidence to argue that the elephants’ enclosure was too small and barren, and raised concerns about nutrition, enrichment and veterinary care. They contended that captivity deprived the animals of autonomy and a natural life, causing psychological suffering and distress.
They argued that the respondents had constitutional duties to protect animal welfare and the public interest, and that the continued confinement of the elephants should be declared unlawful.
Chief Fritz separately argued that keeping elephants confined and exhibiting them conflicted with Khoi culture, living heritage, spiritual beliefs and the community’s relationship with nature. His case relied on constitutional protections concerning dignity, cultural participation and the rights of cultural communities, as well as the National Heritage Resources Act.
The zoo and the City of Johannesburg disputed the applicants’ allegations and opposed the application. They argued that the case amounted to an attempt to challenge the legality of keeping elephants in captivity without properly addressing the statutory framework governing the zoo and its permit.
Judge finds applicants had not established a legal basis
Judge Bam identified two central issues. The first was whether the applicants could rely directly on the Constitution without first relying on or challenging the constitutionality of relevant legislation. The second was whether the respondents’ refusal to release the elephants amounted to an administrative decision that could be reviewed.
Judge Bam applied the principle of constitutional subsidiarity. This means litigants generally must rely on legislation enacted to give effect to constitutional rights rather than bypassing that legislation. The applicants had not challenged the constitutionality of the environmental laws governing elephants in captivity.
The judgment considered the National Environmental Management Act, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act and the regulations and standards governing threatened or protected species and elephant management. The legislation provides a regulatory framework for keeping elephants, including permit requirements and consequences for non-compliance.
Judge Bam found that the applicants had not identified a specific provision of that framework that the respondents had breached. She also said the authorities responsible for administering the legislation had the relevant expertise and resources to assess questions about elephant welfare and compliance.
Judge Bam cautioned against the court substituting its own assessment for decisions entrusted to the relevant authorities without a proper legal basis. The applicants could pursue available legal remedies if they believed statutory breaches had occurred, but she noted that they had not established that they had pursued such remedies.
No reviewable administrative decision identified
The applicants also sought to review what they described as decisions to keep the elephants in captivity or the respondents’ failure to decide to release them. They relied on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and the principle of legality.
They pointed to correspondence from the zoo’s attorneys dated 22 January 2022, which responded to a demand issued the previous month. The attorneys said their clients were still considering a welfare report concerning the elephants, but disagreed with its recommendations for relocation and considered the elephants’ welfare best served by their remaining at the zoo.
The applicants argued that the review had been launched on 5 July 2022, within the 180 days prescribed by PAJA from the latest decision they identified. Judge Bam found, however, that the applicants had not established that the conduct relied on met the legal requirements for administrative action.
They had not identified the empowering provision under which the alleged decision was taken, nor shown that the correspondence amounted to a reviewable decision by an authorised public body. The zoo’s authority to keep the elephants arose from its permit. Judge Bam therefore found no reviewable administrative decision or established obligation to decide to release them on which the application could succeed.
Because the applicants’ declaratory and review claims failed, Judge Bam found no basis to grant the interdictory relief they sought. She also noted that the applicants had not addressed the requirements for a final interdict.
Parts of replying affidavit struck out
The respondents also applied to strike out portions of the applicants’ replying affidavit, arguing that the material introduced a new case they had not been allowed to answer. The disputed material included references to other elephants and claims concerning the zoo’s finances and budget constraints.
Judge Bam accepted that the applicants had conceded that the material about other elephants was tangential and not essential to their case. The application to strike out the identified passages and related confirmatory evidence was therefore granted.
Judge Bam also rejected the applicants’ allegations that the respondents had obstructed the proceedings and caused delays. She referred to delays in filing supplementary affidavits and the replying affidavit, finding that the complaint against the respondents was not supported by the evidence before the court.
The application was dismissed without a costs order.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
