Category

Eviction law case summaries

Jun 09
0

Extended notice period in an eviction

By | Appeal of an eviction order, Eviction law case summaries, PIE, Tenants

What is a reasonable notice period?

Renting a property is intrinsically insecure, compared to home ownership. Regardless of the compliance of the tenant, circumstances may arise where a property owner needs to occupy their property and evict the tenant. However, for the tenant the property may represent a permanent home, and being forced to relocate to another property could be disruptive to family life. Is there a tension between property rights and constitutional values under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (“PIE”)? Is there a case for an extended notice period to vacate in some circumstances, on the grounds of reasonableness and human decency?

A recent case brought before the Western Cape High Court concerns an opposed eviction application that hinges on this issue. The property owner seeks to remove a tenant and their family from a residential property. The application is technically valid as the fixed-term lease has expired, and the landlord wishes to allow their daughter to occupy the property. The tenant does not contest these facts. They argue not that they should be entitled to indefinite occupation but rather being forced to move out of their home will not be just and equitable as it will have an impact on their minor children. They also cite the good faith in which they entered into the lease.

Background

The tenant, who has two children who are settled and thriving at a nearby school, took occupation of the property in August 2023 under a 12-month lease managed by the landlord’s agent. The tenant was assured at that time that the lease would be renewable and they had a reasonable expectation of long-term occupation. They therefore sold the family home to relocate.

When the property owner later refused to renew the lease and sought eviction, the tenant opposed the application. They did not request or expect to remain permanently but requested a deferred eviction date that would allow their children to complete the school year and give the family time to secure stable, suitable alternative accommodation.

Legal basis of the request for an extended notice period

The core of the tenant’s position is rooted in Section 4 of the PIE Act, which requires courts to consider “all relevant circumstances” before granting eviction, including the rights of minor children. The tenant argues the court should be sensitive to the context and support a deferred eviction, although there is no legal entitlement to stay. In a previous case the High Court deferred eviction, even where rental arrears were due, because a child’s schooling would have been disrupted. The tenant in the current case is not in default of rental payments and argues their children’s education is similarly tied to the family’s residence at the property.

Misrepresentation by the landlord’s agent

Another key point in the tenant’s argument is alleged misrepresentation by the landlord’s agent during lease negotiations. The tenant was assured that long-term rental was normal and an “option to renew” clause was included in the lease. Relying on these assurances, the tenant sold their prior residence, a life-altering decision that significantly increased the stakes.

Although the lease contained a standard “entire agreement” clause, the tenant argues that this should not preclude the court from considering broader contextual facts. The landlord has relied on adherence to the formal eviction process, but this is in conflict with the just and equitable factor mandated by PIE.

The impact on minor children

Perhaps the most compelling argument by the tenant lies in child-centred justice. The tenant’s children are enrolled in nearby schools and the family’s continued residence at the property is essential to maintaining the children’s schooling placement and emotional stability.

The tenant seeks a deferral of eviction until mid-December 2025, aligned with the school calendar. This request is both limited and proportionate. A mid-year move would cause emotional distress and educational disruption to the children, which is exactly what PIE seeks to prevent.

Good faith improvements and financial contributions

A further layer of the just and equitable factor arises from the improvements made by the tenant to the property, totalling approximately R120,000, materially enhancing the property’s functionality. These improvements were approved by the landlord’s agent and undertaken in the belief that the lease would be renewed.

The landlord argues that these improvements are theirs to retain without compensation. The tenant believes this position is unjust, especially because the improvements were made in good faith and add lasting value. They point out that no reasonable tenant would invest six months’ worth of rental income into a property if they only intended a short-term stay.

The broader housing context

In considering what is “just and equitable,” courts take into consideration the broader socio-economic environment. The tenant points to Cape Town’s highly competitive housing market, where access to affordable family housing near good schools is increasingly limited. The tenant is willing to pay a rental increase of 10% to compensate for the extended stay, demonstrating good faith and willingness to offset any perceived financial prejudice.

The limits of ownership and landlord’s moral obligations 

This case raises critical questions about the limits of ownership and the moral obligations landlords have when it comes to eviction. The tenant does not challenge legal title; they seek a humane and proportionate application of the law, recognising the realities of schooling, family stability and good-faith reliance.

PIE was enacted to protect the vulnerable from unlawful eviction. This matter illustrates the delicate balance courts must strike between ownership and occupancy, contract and equity, law and justice. The tenant’s reasonable request for a deferred eviction is grounded in established jurisprudence and supported by facts. It should serve as a reminder that legal disputes involving family homes demand more than technical compliance – they require compassion and consideration. 

This case is still before the High Court. We’ll report on the outcome when it is concluded.

For further information

Eviction lawyers SD Law can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on eviction procedure if it becomes necessary. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za. Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban working hard to help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships.  

Further reading:

Oct 18
0

Court won’t allow eviction of ‘unlawful occupants’ at old age home

By | Appeal of an eviction order, Eviction news, PIE

Reprinted from TimesLIVE, by Rorisang Kgosana – 2024-10-17

The City of Johannesburg’s leave to appeal a high court judgment that denied an urgent eviction order to remove unlawful occupants from a retirement village was refused by the Johannesburg High Court as the law it was challenging was “unappealable”.

The 183-unit complex, aimed at SASSA beneficiaries older than 63 who entered into a lease agreement with the city, was now home to younger people and their children as over the years people would move in with their elderly relatives while some would remain in the unit even after the relative passed on, a resident told TimesLIVE.

The centre is now exposed to petty crime while facilities and units are dilapidated and remain unmaintained by the city.

In his judgment, judge Stuart Wilson, who had presided over the initial urgent matter, said the application was unappealable as it challenged section 5 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act. The provision permits only urgent eviction when there is a “real and imminent danger of substantial injury to people or property” by an unlawful occupier.

“Orders under section 5 of PIE are interim in nature. They are granted or refused ‘pending the outcome of proceedings for a final eviction order’. Their interlocutory nature naturally raises the question of whether and to what extent decisions under section 5 are appealable,” said Wilson.

He said the decision to refuse a section 5 eviction order does not prevent the application from seeking relief under section 4 of the act, and the unlawful occupier will remain at the property until the proceedings are finalised.

“Accordingly, it seems to me that the refusal of relief under section 5 is not appealable. To hold otherwise would open the door to undesirable piecemeal litigation. Every refusal of relief under section 5 could, in principle, spawn an appeal, which would have to be addressed in parallel with, or before, the applicant’s entitlement to final relief under section 4 is considered.

“To permit the fractional disposal of eviction applications under PIE in this way would lengthen and complicate PIE proceedings, which are often already factually and legally complex matters, especially where poor and vulnerable people allege that they would face homelessness on eviction.”

He said the city had no reasonable prospect of convincing a court of an appeal that he was wrong in his judgment when he decided that section 5 requires it to link those it seeks to evict with “real and imminent danger of substantial injury to people or property”.

“Mr Nhutsve, who appeared for the city, advanced no alternative reading of section 5, which would permit the city to evict individuals or groups of people who had not been linked to a ‘real and imminent danger of substantial injury to people or property’. In the absence of such a reading, there can be no success on appeal,” said Wilson.

He said the city admits it wants to evict people who provide care to lawful residents of the complex, which those residents cannot do without.

It was on that basis that Wilson found that the relief sought would “endanger the safety and wellbeing of the very people the city says it wishes to protect”.

The city also raised issues of the hearing, arguing that it did not get a fair hearing as its counsel, Nhutsve, was not allowed to present his prepared speech to the court but was instead required to answer the court’s questions about whether the facts on the papers justified the relief sought.

“The city did not produce a transcript in support of its claims. Mr Nhutsve was accordingly constrained to advance his complaints about the fairness of the hearing from memory … I do not recognise Mr Nhutsve’s recollection of the hearing. The hearing lasted for about an hour, about 45 of which consisted of an exchange between me and Mr Nhutsve about the papers and the relief sought. The exchange was robust but respectful. I listened carefully to Mr Nhutsve’s submission, and had due regard to them in my judgment.”

Wilson said the city’s complaints about the way he conducted the hearing do not have a bearing on the correctness of his decision. In addition, Mr Nhutsve could not point out any submissions that he failed to make due to being interrupted.

“It was for these reasons that I refused the city’s application for leave to appeal.”

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with an urgent eviction matter.

Further reading:

Sep 23
0

Court orders eviction of shantytown residents around Castle of Good Hope

By | Eviction news, Eviction orders, Homeless

Reprinted from TimesLive, by Timna Mgunculu – 2024-09-29

City of Cape Town has to offer alternative accommodation in the form of ‘safe spaces’

The department of public works (DPW) has obtained a court order to evict residents of a shantytown that sprang up around the Castle of Good Hope.

The department approached the high court in Cape Town on Tuesday asking for an order compelling the residents to leave the historic precinct by October 17.

According to the order, the City of Cape Town has to offer the residents “alternative accommodation” in the form of “safe spaces”. The shantytown residents “who take up the alternative accommodation at a City Safe Space shall be entitled to an initial six-month stay, which shall be extended until they have acquired alternative accommodation”.

This is “subject to such individuals engaging with the city and co-operating in meeting their respective Personal Development Plans”.

Should the residents not vacate the area by the cut-off date and not take up accommodation offered by the city, the sheriff, assisted by the police, will “eject” them. Their structures will also be demolished.

Cape Town mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis welcomed the development, saying the situation had been a “concern”.

He said the city’s social development professionals had helped the department in documenting “the personal circumstances of each of the unlawful occupants via on-site interviews”.

Hill-Lewis said offers of “transitional shelter at City Safe Spaces and NGO-run night shelters have been made” and remain available.

“I warmly welcome the court granting an eviction order to the national DPW as the land custodian for the Castle precinct,” said Hill-Lewis. “This site has long been a source of public concern and complaint — as well as a source of frequent incidents of crime and general grime.

“The city has been pushing for more than two years for the owner of the site to take responsibility for it. We are grateful to the new minister for showing leadership and getting his department to act.

“The unlawful occupation began during the national lockdown, and the city has long been advocating for a resolution not only because of the Castle’s tourism and economic importance but also for the sake of the unlawful occupants. Accepting social assistance to get off the streets is the best choice for dignity, health and wellbeing.”

He said no-one had the right to reserve a public space as exclusively theirs while indefinitely refusing all offers of shelter and social assistance.

Hill-Lewis said the city last month completed all processes related to the final eviction order obtained for various unlawful occupation sites in the CBD along Buitengracht Street, FW de Klerk Boulevard, Foregate Square, the taxi rank and Foreshore, Helen Suzman Boulevard, Strand Street, Foreshore/N1, Virginia Avenue and Mill Street Bridge.

“Earlier this year, the high court further granted the city two similar eviction orders in recent months for central Cape Town, at the Green Point tennis courts in the vicinity of the Nelson Mandela Boulevard intersection with Hertzog Boulevard, Old Marine Drive and Christiaan Barnard Bridge,” said Hill-Lewis.

Hill-Lewis said the city would spend more than R220m in the next three years to expand and operate its Safe Space transitional shelters beyond the current 1,070 beds across the CBD, Bellville and Durbanville facilities.

“The city now operates two Safe Spaces at Culemborg in the east CBD, which offer 510 shelter beds across the facilities, with a new 300-bed Safe Space in Green Point opened in July 2024,” he said.

“A further facility is on the cards for Muizenberg, with plans for more around the metro. The city further runs the Matrix substance abuse treatment programme, with an 83% success rate for clients, addressing a key driver of why people end up on the streets.

“Annually the city helps about 3,500 individuals with shelter placement or referrals to an array of social services. In 22/23, this amounted to 2,246 shelter placements, 112 family reunifications and reintegrations, 1,124 referrals to social services, and more than 880 short-term contractual job opportunities via the expanded public works programme.”

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with tenants’ rights or landlords’ responsibilities.

Further reading: