Uber’s South African registration delay raises fresh questions about e-hailing regulation

Uber’s registration with South Africa’s National Public Transport Regulator (NPTR) remains unresolved months after the deadline set under the country’s e-hailing regulations. The company submitted its application in February 2026, but the Department of Transport only confirmed the application in a June gazette notice.

Meanwhile, Bolt, InDrive, Wanatu and Maxim have obtained registration certificates, making Uber’s continued wait a question of regulatory compliance, administrative progress and enforcement.

The situation does not amount to evidence that a court has declared Uber’s entire South African operation illegal or ordered it to stop serving passengers. It does, however, raise a straightforward question: how is a major e-hailing platform operating while its required registration remains outstanding, and what does that mean for the drivers who depend on it?

South Africa’s e-hailing rules have moved beyond the deadline

The National Land Transport Amendment Act took effect on 12 September 2025, formally bringing e-hailing services into South Africa’s regulated public-transport framework. Platforms such as Uber, Bolt, InDrive and Wanatu were given 180 days to obtain registration certificates from the NPTR, creating a legal route for services that had operated in a less clearly defined regulatory environment.

TechTrendsKE’s earlier coverage of the framework showed that registration was designed as a substantive process rather than a simple filing exercise. Applicants must submit Form 9A and supporting documentation, undergo verification, have their applications publicly notified, and proceed through adjudication. They must also demonstrate their platforms’ functionality, including mandatory safety features, before the regulator can issue a certificate.

The process reflects a central difficulty in regulating app-based transport. A traditional transport operator can be assessed through vehicles, permits and physical operating structures, while an e-hailing platform also controls the digital systems through which passengers request rides, drivers receive trips and safety features are implemented. The regulator is therefore assessing both the company’s role in the transport service and the technology through which that service is delivered.

Uber’s registration remains unresolved

Uber submitted its registration application on 17 February 2026, according to the MyBroadband report. The Department of Transport subsequently confirmed the application in a Government Gazette notice published on 19 June, which corresponds to the public-notification stage of the registration process.

That timeline leaves an important gap between application and certification. By 14 September, Uber had reportedly still not received its registration certificate, while the company had not provided MyBroadband with an updated response on the status of its application before publication.

The available information does not establish why the process has taken so long. It is possible that the application required additional documentation, that the NPTR had outstanding compliance questions, or that the process encountered administrative delays. The report suggests that Uber may have attracted additional scrutiny, but that remains speculation rather than an explanation confirmed by the regulator or the company.

The absence of a clear public explanation is significant because the registration framework has already produced approvals. Uber’s delay therefore raises a question about the application itself and another about the transparency of the process: what stage has the company reached, and what remains outstanding?

Rivals have already secured approval

The registration timeline becomes more consequential when compared with the progress of other platforms. Wanatu, a newer entrant with an opportunity to build its service around the draft regulatory requirements, received its certificate on 12 February 2026 after applying in November 2025.

Bolt, which had operated in South Africa for much longer, secured its certificate on 27 February. Its approval showed that an established international ride-hailing platform could complete the process despite the additional requirements introduced by the new framework. InDrive subsequently received registration, while Maxim has also been reported as having obtained certification.

These approvals do not prove that Uber’s application should have been completed by a particular date. Registration timelines can depend on the completeness of submissions, the issues raised during verification and the regulator’s handling of individual applications. They do, however, establish that the NPTR’s process is capable of producing approvals and that Uber’s unresolved status is not simply the result of every platform being stuck in the same administrative queue.

The competitive context also matters. Bolt has continued expanding its South African operations after registration, including plans for an electric-vehicle fleet in Cape Town. InDrive’s registration, meanwhile, illustrates that the framework accommodates different platform models, including its fare-negotiation approach. The market is therefore continuing to develop while Uber’s regulatory position remains unclear.

Why platform registration matters to drivers

The consequences of platform registration extend beyond the companies operating the apps. Under the framework described in the registration process, individual e-hailing drivers must obtain their own operating licences, but they can only apply once the platform they use has secured its registration certificate.

That creates a regulatory link between the platform and its driver network. A company’s certification is a prerequisite for the next stage of compliance, which means an unresolved platform application can create uncertainty for drivers who need to regularise their operations.

MyBroadband also reported that some drivers could reduce their exposure to enforcement by operating on both Uber and a registered platform. That point requires care. It should not be interpreted as a blanket legal exemption, and the precise legal basis for such an arrangement would need to be confirmed with the relevant authorities. Still, it illustrates the practical consequences of a regulatory system in which platform registration and driver licensing are connected.

The issue is especially important in a sector where drivers may use several apps to find passengers and manage their income. Across African ride-hailing markets, drivers often weigh fares, commissions, trip availability, fuel costs and operating expenses when deciding which platforms to use. Regulatory compliance becomes another consideration, particularly when a platform’s registration affects access to individual operating licences.

The wider economics of operating a ride-hailing platform

The commercial context helps explain why registration is more than a legal formality. Ride-hailing platforms operate two-sided marketplaces that must keep passengers willing to pay while ensuring drivers can cover fuel, maintenance, insurance, financing and the time spent working. A platform also has to fund technology, customer support, safety systems and other operating costs.

TechTrendsKE’s analysis of Uber’s withdrawal from Nigeria illustrates how difficult that balance can become. Research based on more than 20,000 Uber and inDrive trips suggested that Uber sometimes paid Nigerian drivers more than passengers were charged for short journeys, while reported trip volumes were substantially lower than those recorded among Uber drivers in South Africa. The findings did not establish that subsidies alone caused Uber’s exit, but they showed how low utilization and fare pressure can undermine a ride-hailing business.

South Africa’s regulatory question is different, but the underlying commercial relationship is relevant. Platforms need enough passenger demand and driver participation to sustain their services, while compliance requirements add obligations that must be incorporated into the operating model. Registration can affect how platforms organise their driver networks, implement safety features and maintain access to the market.

Kenya provides another regional example of the pressure surrounding ride-hailing economics. TechTrendsKE’s reporting has covered disputes over commissions, fare increases and driver operating costs, including Bolt’s decision to raise Kenyan fares after citing higher expenses. These developments do not establish that South Africa’s framework is producing the same commercial pressures, but they show why the relationship between regulation, driver earnings and passenger affordability matters to platforms across the continent.

What Uber’s case reveals about regulatory enforcement

The most important unanswered question is whether Uber’s unresolved registration reflects an incomplete application, a substantive compliance issue or an administrative delay. Only the NPTR or Uber can provide a definitive answer, and the available reporting does not yet do so.

The second question concerns enforcement. If platform registration is a legal requirement, the Department of Transport and relevant regulatory bodies should be able to explain how the rules apply while a major operator remains without a reported certificate. The absence of a public enforcement explanation leaves uncertainty over whether Uber is operating under a temporary arrangement, whether penalties have been considered, or whether the authorities are allowing the application process to continue without immediate intervention.

That uncertainty matters because regulation works partly through consistency. A framework that requires platforms to obtain certification must also make clear how applications are assessed, how delays are handled and what happens when a platform continues operating without completing the process. Otherwise, businesses and drivers may face different levels of uncertainty depending on where their applications stand.

Uber’s South African situation also shows why the formal recognition of e-hailing is only one part of the regulatory task. Authorities must manage platform registration, driver licensing, safety requirements and enforcement while dealing with companies that are already embedded in urban transport networks. The challenge is to maintain clear rules without leaving the market unsure about how those rules are being applied.

For now, the available evidence supports a narrower conclusion than the claim that Uber has been formally banned. The company’s required registration remains unresolved, rival platforms have secured approval, and the regulator has yet to publicly explain the delay. Until that explanation emerges, Uber’s case remains a test of how South Africa’s e-hailing framework handles a major platform that is still operating while its formal status is unsettled.

Real ESG impact doesn’t happen in panels alone, it happens in the rooms where financiers, operators, and policymakers actually align. Our GreenShift Forum 2026 cuts the noise, bringing together the people rewiring Africa’s sustainability and energy frameworks for one focused day in Nairobi. Secure your seat.

Go to TECHTRENDSKE.co.ke for more tech and business news from the African continent and across the world.

Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to editorial@techtrendsmedia.co.ke