Category

PIE

Jun 02
0

PIE Amendment Bill – public comment

By | PIE

What does it include and why the debate?

If you are a landlord you are undoubtedly familiar with “PIE” or, to give it its full name, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998. Currently a draft amendment bill is undergoing public consultation. The Minister of Human Settlements, Thembi Simelane, held a media briefing in April and the bill is open for public comments until 16 June. The amendment bill is causing an element of controversy and debate. We look at the issues raised by critics of the bill.

Purpose of PIE

No one needs reminding that, under apartheid, there was considerable injustice in the housing market. People were often removed from the land they occupied without due process (fair treatment). Under the young democracy, PIE was one of the laws enacted to right historical wrongs and give effect to rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in this case the right to adequate and secure housing as enshrined in Section 26. PIE in particular sought to prevent arbitrary evictions.

Shortcomings of PIE

While the intentions were honourable, the wording of PIE led to protection against eviction that went beyond the purpose of the law. Rather than protecting vulnerable unlawful occupiers, e.g., squatters, who may have lacked access to the formal housing market, it extended protection to former occupiers whose legal right to occupy a property may have come to a natural end.

The result of this inadvertent overly broad protection from eviction was not greater access to housing but a more tightly controlled housing market with more restricted access to those not already on the housing ladder. It increased the risk for landlords and contributed to higher rents and stricter screening.

2006 amendment bill

The challenges inherent in PIE were recognised and an attempt was made in 2006 to amend the Act. The PIE Amendment Bill 2006 sought to clarify the eviction procedure and the wording clearly excluded former lawful occupiers from PIE protection once the legal basis for their occupation had ended. However, that bill was never enacted.

2026 amendment bill provisions

The current bill open for consultation revisits the aim of strengthening the laws governing illegal occupations and evictions. It intends to make the Act easier to understand and simpler to enforce. It does not, claims the Government, lessen the protection for vulnerable groups. But it does seek to crack down on illegal occupations, introducing an offence covering incitement or organisation of illegal occupations. Municipalities and private owners will be empowered to respond more assertively to illegal occupation of their land or buildings. Vulnerable groups will be safeguarded by measures allowing the stipulation of the period for which alternative accommodation must be made available to unlawful occupiers.

Why the debate?

Critics argue that the drafting of the 2026 amendment bill does not adequately address the challenges in the original Act. The wording used in the 2006 bill expressly excluded “holders over”, i.e., previous legal occupants whose legal right of occupation has ended. The 2026 bill does not contain the same clarity of language. Housing activists are concerned that the result is continued protection for those already in the formal housing market and reinforced barriers to access for those stranded outside it.

Have your say – public comment invited

At SD Law, we uphold the right of tenants to secure housing. We also believe owners have the right to enjoy their property for whatever purpose, whether as an income-earning asset or a residence. And sometimes a property’s function needs to shift from one to the other. The law must ensure such a change of use can be effected lawfully with relative ease. Otherwise, property owners may be reluctant to become landlords.

We encourage property owners to scrutinise the PIE amendment bill 2026 and provide feedback to PIE.AmendmentBill@dhs.gov.za by 16 June 2026. If you have questions regarding how the proposed amendments will impact your property or your circumstances, contact one of our attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za for practical guidance on your rights and obligations. Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a firm of estate and eviction attorneys in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban.

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 attorneys in Cape Town  can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on eviction procedure, eviction process guide, 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 attorneys in Cape Town can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on eviction procedure, eviction process guide, 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: