THE LEGAL JUNGLE: EXOTIC ANIMAL OWNERSHIP IN JOHANNESBURG
- Gittins Attorneys Law Firm
- May 13
- 3 min read
Updated: May 20

Exotic animal ownership in South Africa, particularly in the Johannesburg metropolitan area, occupies a fraught and controversial space at the intersection of public safety, animal welfare, and legislative ambiguity. Despite South Africa’s reputation for strong biodiversity protection on paper, significant gaps in provincial and municipal regulation, especially within Gauteng, have created a regulatory vacuum that enables private individuals to keep dangerous and unsuitable wild animals in suburban environments, often with alarming consequences.
At the national level, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA) governs the protection of threatened or protected species (commonly referred to as “TOPS”), including provisions around their capture, breeding, trade, and transportation. Under NEMBA, permits are required for the ownership or use of animals listed in its official schedules. However, this framework only applies to species formally designated as "threatened" or "protected," and leaves the regulation of non listed species, many of which may still pose significant risks—to provincial authorities.
In Gauteng, the primary legislation governing the keeping of wild animals is the Gauteng Nature Conservation Ordinance 12 of 1983, as amended. Crucially, this ordinance does not require permits for certain exotic species—such as Bengal tigers— because they are not indigenous to South Africa and therefore fall outside the scope of provincial conservation mandates. This loophole was starkly exposed in January 2023, when an 8-year-old Bengal tiger named Sheba escaped from a private smallholding in Walkerville, south of Johannesburg. Over the course of her escape, Sheba attacked a man, killed several animals, and was eventually euthanised by authorities. Despite the grave public safety risks, it emerged that her owner had not contravened any legal provisions in keeping the animal.
Just weeks later, a second alarming incident occurred in Edenvale, when another tiger was seen roaming through a residential area. Although this tiger was eventually captured without incident, the event reinforced the growing concern that suburban Johannesburg has become a hotbed for unregulated exotic animal ownership. In both cases, the legal position remained the same: because these tigers were non-
indigenous, no provincial permits were required, and no criminal liability was attached to their escape.
Municipalities such as the City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality have attempted to bridge these regulatory gaps through local by-laws. For example, the Ekurhuleni Animal Keeping By-Laws require that enclosures for dangerous exotic species—such as large carnivores and primates—be set back at least six metres from property boundaries and be subject to permitting requirements. However, these by-laws are inconsistently enforced due to limited municipal resources and jurisdictional overlap with provincial conservation authorities.
The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has long opposed the keeping of exotic animals in private homes, warning that such environments cannot meet the animals’ physical, psychological, or social needs. The NSPCA has also criticised the fragmented regulatory framework, citing the absurdity of a scenario in which a meerkat may require a permit while a tiger does not. In their view, the current state of affairs poses an unacceptable risk to both human safety and animal welfare.
There is growing momentum for legal reform. Numerous civil society groups, veterinarians, and legal practitioners have called on the Department of Environmental Affairs and provincial legislatures to harmonise conservation laws across provinces and to expand the scope of NEMBA to include high-risk, non-indigenous species. Among the key proposals are: Amending NEMBA to regulate all dangerous exotic animals, regardless of origin;
Creating a unified, national permitting system;
Establishing a national registry of exotic animal holdings;
Requiring routine inspections and veterinary certifications;
Restricting ownership to certified sanctuaries, zoos, or conservation facilities.
In conclusion, exotic animal ownership in Johannesburg reflects a deeper crisis within South Africa’s environmental regulatory landscape. As the law currently stands, it is entirely legal for a private individual to keep a dangerous predator, such as a tiger, in a suburban area without any meaningful oversight. While some municipalities and
provincial departments have made commendable efforts to address the issue, true reform will require comprehensive national legislation, coordinated enforcement mechanisms, and public education campaigns to ensure that exotic animals are housed safely, ethically, and lawfully.
Comments