Category

Tenants

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:

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: