Category

Rental Housing Act

Sep 08
0

Reimbursement for property improvements?

By | Lease Agreement, Rental Housing Act, Tenants

Don’t rely on oral agreements

It is not uncommon for long-term tenants to make improvements to a rental property using their own resources. After all, it is their home and the project they want to undertake may not have any obvious benefit to the property owner. Therefore, it may not be reasonable to expect the landlord to fund the improvements, in sharp contrast to essential repairs. But what expectations does this create? Can the tenant reasonably expect to be reimbursed for their financial outlay? Does their investment in the property give them an advantage if the owner eventually decides to sell? These questions were put to the test in a recent case, which provides lessons for both landlords and tenants.

The case

The dispute arose after a tenant had leased a property for over 15 years and made extensive improvements. The tenant claimed there was an oral agreement giving them a right of first refusal to buy the property, which justified the investment in repairs and renovations. When the tenant fell into rental arrears exceeding R1 million and was evicted, they counterclaimed for reimbursement of c. R900,000, alleging both breach of an oral right of first refusal and unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is a legal concept that means one person has unfairly benefited at the expense of another, and it would be wrong for them to keep that benefit without compensating the other person. However, for a claim of unjust enrichment to be successful, the tenant must demonstrate that certain legal criteria were met.

The landlord denied any such agreement existed and relied on clear lease provisions which stated no compensation would be paid for improvements, regardless of consent.

The property was eventually sold for R3 million, and the landlord claimed outstanding rent adjusted for prescription. This means that the landlord asked for unpaid rent, which the court adjusted because of a legal principle that limits the time period in which a claim can be made. The landlord was only entitled to the rent that was still legally collectible, taking into account any relevant time limits.

Court findings

Unfortunately for the tenant, the court did not find in their favour, citing several reasons. Their case might have been different had they not fallen into severe rental arrears. But the court found no enforceable right of first refusal. There was no written agreement granting the tenant a right of first refusal. Any oral agreement was unenforceable because the lease required amendments to be in writing and signed by both parties.

The rent increases the tenant had endured were lawful. The lease included a 10% escalation clause every two years. The rent increase from R22,000 to R28,000 in December 2017 was lawful and reasonable under the Rental Housing Act, according to the court. Furthermore, no compensation was deemed appropriate for improvements the tenant made to the property. Clause 12 of the lease explicitly barred compensation for improvements made by the tenant, whether or not the landlord consented. The tenant’s claim for reimbursement was therefore dismissed.

Lastly, their claim for unjust enrichment was rejected. In this case the tenant failed to frame their claim under one of the recognised legal enrichment grounds. The lease explicitly stated that no compensation would be paid for improvements, removing a critical component of legal justification. The court emphasised that unjust enrichment claims must meet strict legal criteria. The tenant’s removal of improvements also weakened their claim. The tenant had removed several enhancements upon vacating, and no joint inspection was conducted. The property was deemed to be in good repair, further undermining  the claim.

Practical takeaways for tenants and landlords

While the case had an unsatisfactory outcome for the tenant, it offers important lessons for all parties in a rental housing situation. Most importantly, get agreements in writing! While verbal or oral leases were once legally acceptable, the Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 introduced the requirement for a written lease. If you want a right of first refusal or compensation for improvements, ensure these are clearly documented in a written lease amendment signed by both parties. Make sure you understand your lease, whether you are landlord or tenant. Read the lease terms carefully, especially clauses on rent escalation and improvements. Don’t make or ask for oral promises, which are difficult to enforce.

If you are the tenant, seek consent before making improvements. If you are the property owner, make it clear that, while you may not oppose a reasonable enhancement to the property as long as it is not a structural alteration, you want to be informed and give consent to any plans the tenant may have. 

Tenants should ask for written consent before spending money on renovations and clarify whether they will be reimbursed. Equally, landlords should maintain thorough records of lease terms, communications and any inspections to protect everyone’s interests. Finally, regular, clear communication about lease terms and property conditions will prevent disputes and potentially costly legal battles.

For further information

SD Law can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on clear lease terms in landlord–tenant relationships, especially regarding improvements and rent increases. Contact one of our attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za. Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist property lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban working hard to help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships.

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:

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: