Johannesburg Zoo elephants to remain after High Court dismissal

Court ruling keeps three elephants at Johannesburg Zoo

Three elephants housed at the Johannesburg Zoo will remain at the facility after the Gauteng High Court last week dismissed an application that sought their transfer to a sanctuary, according to reporting on 21 October 2026. The application was brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and a third party.

What the court decision said and who challenged it

The legal challenge aimed to have the animals moved on welfare grounds. The activists argued that the elephants were being kept in conditions that neglected their “physical, emotional, and social needs” and urged that an already-arranged relocation plan be implemented.

Statements from the Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo

Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ) welcomed the court’s dismissal and emphasised that the elephants would remain under its current permit. JCPZ described the animals as “majestic” and framed the decision as one that respects the lawful framework governing the zoo.

“The three majestic elephants will remain at the zoo under its existing valid and lawful permit. It rests with the people who care for them, the professionals who assess their wellbeing and a city that must remain accountable for the animals entrusted to it.”

Activists’ response and ongoing concerns

The EMS Foundation and other applicants expressed disappointment with the ruling and were careful to note what the dismissal did and did not decide. Their response underlined that the court’s ruling addressed legal technicalities rather than resolving disputed expert evidence about animal welfare.

“The dismissal rests on the court’s findings concerning the legal basis of the application and the availability of administrative review. It should not be represented as a finding that the applicants’ welfare concerns were disproved. The court did not resolve the contested expert evidence about the elephants’ well-being or determine that they are thriving in captivity.”

The EMS Foundation said a “suitable alternative” could still be found and indicated it would consult its legal team about next steps.

“Public institutions must be willing to reconsider established practices when animals’ well-being is at stake.”

“The elephants deserve a serious, evidence-based assessment of the possibility of a better life.”

Background on the elephants and the zoo

The Johannesburg Zoo houses more than 1 700 animals from almost 350 species, and JCPZ describes it as the primary public wildlife education facility in the province. Of the three elephants at the centre of the dispute, one has been at the zoo since birth in 1979, while the other two joined the collection in 2019 after being purchased from a private game reserve in the Eastern Cape.

Zoo leadership on public education and animal care

JCPZ Managing Director Thanduxolo Mendrew framed the zoo’s role as providing an opportunity for families and children in Gauteng and beyond to see animals they might not otherwise encounter, arguing that these interactions can deepen respect for wildlife, inspire care and open pathways to conservation.

“JCPZ accepts this judgement with a clear understanding that the welfare of our animals take precedence and guides our decisions. JCPZ recognises the public concern for animal welfare surrounding this matter and remains committed to respectful engagement, transparency and continued improvement of the care of the animals at the zoo.”

What the dismissal means in practical terms

The organisations challenging the zoo framed the court ruling as addressing the legal route taken rather than settling the substantive welfare questions. In legal disputes of this kind, a dismissal on procedural or legal grounds can leave room for alternative remedies, such as administrative review or further legal action avenues the applicants indicated they may pursue.

For the time being, the elephants will remain at the Johannesburg Zoo under its existing permit and continue to be the subject of public and institutional scrutiny. Both sides have signalled that concerns about welfare and the appropriate home for the animals remain active elements of the dispute.

Why this matters to the public

The case highlights overlapping public interests: the legal framework that governs how public institutions care for animals, the role of zoos in education and conservation, and the responsibilities of authorities and advocacy groups when welfare concerns are raised. The matter has drawn attention from both activists and the city, with each side emphasising different priorities legal process and institutional accountability on one hand, and welfare assessment and potential relocation on the other.

Next steps

The EMS Foundation said it would consult its legal team. Beyond that, both JCPZ and the applicants signalled continued engagement: JCPZ by reaffirming its commitment to animal welfare, transparency and improvement, and the activists by underlining that unresolved welfare questions may still be pursued through appropriate legal or administrative channels.

As the situation develops, public institutions and advocacy groups will remain the key drivers of any further change, with decisions shaped by legal processes, expert assessments and ongoing public interest.