Category

PIE

Jul 02
0

Proposed changes to PIE Act

By | Eviction news, PIE, Rental Housing Act, Tenants

What do they mean for property owners and communities?

In recent weeks, a Private Member’s Bill tabled by the Democratic Alliance (DA) has brought the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (commonly known as the PIE Act) back into the spotlight. The Bill proposing changes to PIE is currently moving through Parliament and was considered by the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements on 28th May.

Whether you’re a property owner or tenant or just concerned about land issues in South Africa, it is worth understanding what this amendment seeks to do and why it is generating debate.

What is the PIE Act?

The PIE Act was enacted to give effect to Section 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to adequate housing and protects against arbitrary evictions. The PIE Act lays out procedures that must be followed before someone can be evicted from land or buildings they occupy, even if unlawfully.

At its heart, PIE is about balancing the rights of property owners with the dignity and basic needs of unlawful occupiers, especially vulnerable people like the elderly, children and the poor. However, over time, many property owners and municipalities have argued that the Act is too rigid and has been exploited by bad actors, leading to long, expensive legal battles and delays in evictions – even in cases where the occupation is clearly in bad faith.

Why is an amendment proposed?

The DA’s proposed changes to PIE stem from growing concerns around what are often referred to as “land invasions” – the organised and often politically motivated occupations of land, including private or municipal property, without permission. The party argues that illegal occupations, especially those not driven by genuine housing need but by opportunism or criminal intent, are harming both property owners and the broader community. Municipalities are forced to divert funds meant for housing developments to protect land from invasion or to litigate evictions.

What does the amendment propose?

The main features of the Bill cover:

  • Criminalising the incitement of land invasions: It would become a criminal offence to encourage, organise or incite others to unlawfully occupy land – even if no money changes hands. This aims to address political operatives and syndicates who allegedly orchestrate invasions for gain or influence.
  • More defined criteria for courts: Currently, courts must consider certain factors (like whether alternative accommodation is available) before granting an eviction. The amendment would require clearer and more specific criteria for courts to follow, particularly where the occupation is clearly in bad faith.
  • Time limits for municipal obligations: If a court orders a municipality to provide alternative accommodation to an unlawful occupier, it must also specify the duration of that provision. This would help municipalities plan and avoid indefinite obligations.

Why changes to PIE matter

Land and housing are emotionally and politically charged issues in South Africa, where the legacy of apartheid dispossession still looms large. The PIE Act was part of a constitutional effort to ensure nobody is evicted without due process. However, the system needs to be practical. There’s a growing view (especially among property owners, small landlords and some municipalities) that the current law makes it too difficult to reclaim property, even from unlawful occupiers who have no right to be there.

The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine need and bad faith. Not every unlawful occupier is a land invader; many people are desperate and have nowhere else to go. But there are also cases where criminal groups exploit the housing crisis to occupy land illegally and sell plots or rent out structures for profit.

Learn more: read our Complete 2025 Guide to Evictions in South Africa.

The road ahead

The proposed amendment will go through a public consultation and parliamentary process. This is an opportunity for all stakeholders (including legal experts, civil society, municipalities and the public) to present their views and objections.

At SD Law, we will observe the debates around this complex issue, which strives to balance constitutional rights with practical realities, and report any updates as they happen on this website.

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:

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:

Jan 16
0

Evicting unknown occupants

By | Evictions, PIE, Rental Housing Act

How to evict tenants when you don’t know who they are

If you own property you don’t live in, at some point you may be faced with illegal occupants – squatters. Squatters may be – and often are – known to you. Your tenants have stopped paying their rent but fail to vacate the premises. Unpleasant and inconvenient as it is, there is a defined process for evicting non-paying tenants, or occupants in breach of any other condition of the lease. But what happens when you don’t know who the occupants are? This is not as unlikely as it sounds. Perhaps you have relocated from one city to another and your former home is on the market but unsold at the time of your departure. You relocate, taking your possessions with you, and the house is unoccupied. Seeing an opportunity, squatters manage to breach your security defences and move in. Even though their occupation is unlawful, they now have certain rights and you must follow due process to reclaim your property. How do you evict unknown occupants? 

Just such a case happened in Mpumalanga, though this case involved a municipality rather than a private landlord. The case of Emakhazeni Municipality v Ngubeni provides critical guidance as to how municipalities, landlords and other property owners can handle eviction proceedings when the identities of the occupants are unknown. This decision by the Mpumalanga High Court highlights the steps that must be taken to ensure an eviction is lawful and procedurally fair, even when the people occupying the property cannot be specifically named or served with legal documents.

Case summary

The Emakhazeni Municipality sought to evict individuals who had been living on municipal land without legal rights or authorisation. Ngubeni was named as the respondent in the eviction application, while the identity of the remainder of the occupants was unclear, as there was no precise information about who else was occupying the property.

The municipality argued that the land was illegally occupied and therefore applied for an eviction order. However, the unknown identity of the other occupiers raised questions about how the eviction process could be properly served.

Court’s findings

The court recognised the municipality’s right to seek eviction of unauthorised occupants but emphasised several important considerations in ensuring the eviction was lawful and fair:

  1. Notification and service of process: One of the central issues in the case was the correct service of the eviction application on the unknown occupiers. The court ruled that, even in situations where the occupiers cannot be individually identified, the notice of eviction must still be directed to the “unknown occupants” of the property. 

This is essential to ensure the eviction process adheres to the principles of natural justice, giving anyone residing on the property an opportunity to respond. Importantly, while personal service is the ideal method for informing an occupant of eviction proceedings, the court acknowledged that, in cases involving unknown individuals, alternative forms of notice may be acceptable. This could include posting the notice on the property or other reasonable steps to alert the occupiers.

  1. Reasonable steps to identify occupants: The municipality was required to take reasonable steps to ascertain who was living on the property. This could involve physical investigation, consulting local records or using other means to identify the individuals occupying the land. Assuming the named individual (Ngubeni) was the only person occupying the land would not suffice.

The court stressed that landlords and municipalities must demonstrate they have made diligent efforts to confirm the identities of all those living on the property. In this case, failure to identify the other occupants adequately could undermine the eviction application.

  1. Fairness in the eviction process: A central theme in the judgment was the need for fairness. The court emphasised that, even if the identities of the occupiers are unknown, the eviction process must respect their constitutional right to a fair hearing. This includes giving them the opportunity to oppose the eviction or show cause why they should not be evicted, regardless of their unknown status.

The court pointed out that any eviction that proceeds without fair process could be challenged and potentially set aside, especially if it can be shown that proper procedures were not followed.

Lessons for landlords and municipalities

The Emakhazeni Municipality v Ngubeni case provides essential insights for landlords, municipalities and property owners who face the challenge of evicting unknown occupants. Key considerations include:

  • Take reasonable steps to identify occupants: Landlords should conduct a thorough investigation to determine who is occupying the property. Naming one individual in an eviction application, without confirming whether others are living there, is insufficient.
  • Service of eviction notices to unknown occupants: In cases where the identities of the occupiers are unknown, landlords or municipalities should serve notices to the “unknown occupants” of the property. This ensures that anyone residing on the land is informed about the eviction proceedings. If personal service is not possible, other forms of notification, such as posting the notice at the property or publishing it in local newspapers, are generally considered appropriate. However, landlords should be careful to follow the legal requirements closely.
  • Procedural fairness: The right to a fair hearing is a cornerstone of South African law, particularly in matters related to eviction. Even if occupiers cannot be specifically identified, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the eviction. Failing to offer an adequate opportunity to respond could render the eviction process unfair and subject to legal challenge.
  • Legal advice and guidance: Given the complexities of eviction cases, especially when dealing with unknown or unidentified occupants, landlords and municipalities are strongly advised to consult with legal professionals. An attorney will ensure the eviction process follows the correct procedures, preventing delays and the risk of a void or invalid eviction order.
  • Alternative solutions: If the eviction involves vulnerable groups or occupiers who are unable to be identified, landlords should explore alternative solutions. This could include negotiating temporary relocation, offering accommodation assistance, or pursuing other legal remedies that do not immediately result in displacement. However, this may be more feasible for municipalities than for private landlords.

For further information

Whoever your tenants are, whether they are known to you or not, taking reasonable steps to identify occupants, serving notices correctly, and ensuring procedural fairness are essential components of a lawful eviction. If you adhere to these principles, you will avoid costly mistakes and ensure the eviction process is carried out smoothly and justly.

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: