Expropriation Act

Expropriation Act is now law

By | Expropriation Bill

A new era, or the same old fault lines?

Last Thursday, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law the much-debated Expropriation Bill (now the Expropriation Act, 2025). This legislative milestone marks the first update to the country’s expropriation framework since the apartheid-era Act of 1975. Unsurprisingly, given its history, the Act is already headed for legal and political controversy. Expropriation is the taking of privately owned property by government (the expropriating authority) for the public good in return for “just and equitable” compensation.

The Act has ignited debate across the political spectrum. The DA and Solidarity promise court challenges, while the EFF has branded the reform a “legislative cop-out”. DA Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure Dean Macpherson has stated there will be “no expropriation of private property on my watch,” sparking discord within the Cabinet.

Will the Expropriation Act right historical wrongs while upholding constitutional values, or is it an unconstitutional framework doomed to cause more problems than it solves? We examine the controversies, opportunities, and societal implications of the Expropriation Act. 

Protecting property rights

For many South Africans, “expropriation” invokes fears of blanket land seizures. However, well-crafted expropriation laws can stabilise property rights by making state interventions more transparent and rule-bound. Countries like Germany and Canada have used the right of a government to expropriate private property for public use to encourage development while respecting individual rights.

Features of the new Act

The Act aims to align expropriation procedures with Section 25 of the Constitution, which requires “just and equitable” compensation. There are specific circumstances, such as abandoned or speculatively held land, where “nil compensation” may be just. Disputes can be referred to the courts for final determination. In principle, this ensures adherence to fair administrative procedures mandated by both the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) and the Constitution.

Potential problems with the Act

Despite these safeguards, top legal minds argue that certain sections—particularly Sections 7, 8, and 19—create procedural contradictions. Critics say these provisions create dual legal mechanisms, placing the administrative determination of “just and equitable” compensation in conflict with a court-driven process. The Act is intended to clarify expropriation but it could wind up further complicating our land reform agenda.

This is also the first significant test of the GNU. The ANC has been developing this legislation for the past 10 years, and is now dependent on DA support, but the DA is opposed to nil compensation. Beyond the DA, there is broad political resistance. In addition to the EFF’s dismissal, the Freedom Front Plus accuses the Act of overreach; Solidarity has concerns about business confidence and property rights; and COSATU backs the Act as a tool to expedite land reform without inflated payouts.

Possible benefits of the Act

If the Expropriation Act is implemented transparently and thoughtfully, it could facilitate land reform and accelerate transformation. The Act has the potential to activate idle assets. Large tracts of derelict or unused land could be repurposed for social housing and agricultural projects, revitalising local economies. A workable framework could attract socially conscious investors and encourage public–private partnerships. It could even strengthen Ubuntu, which holds that community wellbeing and individual prosperity are intertwined. A fair expropriation mechanism could reflect Ubuntu by balancing historical redress with individual property rights.

Key points for landowners, investors and communities

Property owners are understandably worried about the risk of arbitrary land seizure. It will hopefully reassure them to know that the Act ensures that expropriation serves a clear public purpose or interest. Owners can challenge decisions or seek mediation under the law, consistent with PAJA and constitutional requirements for fair administrative action. However, litigation costs could rise if there are disputes over the interpretation of “nil compensation”.

For prospective buyers and investors, a robust expropriation regime could reduce unpredictability. Investors keen on projects with social impact may benefit if underutilised land is made available, provided the courts uphold the Act in a clear manner. However, legal action threatened by various political parties may place new land deals on hold.

For communities, an effective expropriation process could aid restitution and support community-based agricultural projects and social housing, provided processes are consistent with the Constitution and PAJA. Civil society must remain vigilant to ensure nil compensation is not misused.

Creating hope for the future 

The history of land ownership in South Africa is marked by dispossession, pain and a search for justice. The Expropriation Act 2025 has the potential to be a turning point for inclusive development, but it could also spark fresh legal and social conflict. The Act’s acceptance and effectiveness will depend on integrity of application and the robustness of the judicial system in its enforcement. The Act will undoubtedly be tested in the courts. We will be watching avidly.

If you have questions or concerns about the Expropriation Act

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. If you have concerns or questions about the Expropriation Act and how it might affect you or your property, contact Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za

Further reading:

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:

Cape Town’s rental crisis: are digital nomads driving prices beyond reach for locals?

By | Rent, Tenants

Reprinted from Daily Maverick, by Rebecca Davis – 2024-12-04

We recently wrote about the tension between the benefits and drawbacks of short-term rentals such as Airbnb listings in the Cape Town rental market, where locals often have difficulty finding affordable rental accommodation. This article from the Daily Maverick shows there is another factor putting pressure on the market. 

Want to get tempers rising fast in Cape Town these days? Bring up the topic of digital nomads.

‘Hey, I work for a tech company,” began a Reddit entry from August 2024.

The author of the post, apparently American, proceeded to explain that he was considering moving his family to Cape Town.

“What sort of lifestyle is achievable with $200,000 [R3.6-million] to $300,000 [R5.4-million] a year? We have two children both primary school age and are aware of safety concerns.”

Not to worry, wrote back an apparently British digital nomad based in Cape Town.

“My 14-year-old would bus and train everywhere in London, he Ubers a lot here but it’s completely fine for him on his own if he’s streetwise. With the kind of money you’re on you can afford a driver for the kids anyway!”

Show this exchange to the average Capetonian these days, and chances are high that you will be met with something close to xenophobic rage.

Digital nomads – mostly young foreign professionals in tech, finance, media or insurance, who stay in Cape Town for months at a time working remotely – have become arguably the most hot-button issue of the moment.

John Maytham, host of the Afternoon Drive show on Cape Town’s most popular talk radio station, Cape Talk, says it is a topic which has the studio switchboards lighting up like a Christmas tree.

“I would say around 80% of the public reaction I get on this subject is negative,” Maytham told Daily Maverick.

From the perspective of the politicians at the City of Cape Town, this is an absolute no-brainer. Digital nomads already have jobs, so they don’t need employment here; they arrive with deep pockets and spend lavishly on food, entertainment and accommodation, pumping money into the local economy.

What’s the problem?

Log on to practically any social media platform and you will hear Capetonians arguing one case in particular: that digital nomads are disrupting the local markets through the weight of their (largely) Western currencies, driving restaurant and accommodation prices to levels completely unaffordable to locals.

“My mom was born and raised in Cape Town,” says Tiktokker Azee Green in a video viewed tens of thousands of times.

“I was born and raised in Cape Town, and I probably will never move out of home unless I live with someone else. I cannot afford to compete against the euro and the pound and the dollar.”

Tiktokker Jaxx-Amahle put things more bluntly in a video in late November.

“I suggest you heed this call and you listen closely: what is happening in Cape Town is unsustainable,” she tells the camera.

“That little Utopia is going to combust. And granted, at this stage, it is black and brown people who can’t afford to live in the city so no one cares – but white South Africans, you are next, I promise you. Because the rand is the rand is the rand. It’s not the euro and it’s not the dollar. And you will also be outpriced living in that city.”

One of the complicating issues is just how little data there is on this matter. In fact, there’s none.

The City of Cape Town admits that it does not know how many digital nomads are living and working in Cape Town.

Alderman James Vos pointed Daily Maverick to the Cape Town Digital Nomads Facebook group, which he said had 4,800 members. In fact, it has almost 17,000 members – but this is an obviously unreliable metric, since some members appear to be locals, and naturally not every digital nomad will be a member of the group.

Vos’s point was, however, that the number of members on the group paled in comparison with the Facebook groups for other digital nomad hotspots, like Lisbon, Bali and Medellin in Colombia.

It is highly likely that Cape Town attracts far fewer digital nomads than some of its international counterparts in safer locations. Indeed, on the website Nomads.com, which ranks destinations for digital nomads based on public feedback, Cape Town is listed at only number 36 – lower even than Lagos (31), apparently because Lagos is perceived as safer.

Daily Maverick canvassed co-working spaces around Cape Town, popular for use as offices by digital nomads, as to what proportion of their members they estimated to be foreign nationals.

The year-round average is 10-15%, said Cape Town Office; about 10%, reported Cube Workspace. A “significant portion”, estimated Workshop17.

The implementation of the South African government’s remote work visa – introduced by Home Affairs in May, just before the elections, after lobbying from the Western Cape government since 2021 – should mean that in future there will be some nomad numbers available.

Daily Maverick’s questions to Home Affairs regarding the take-up of the remote work visa went unanswered via email and WhatsApp for a week.

The new visa allows digital nomads to stay in South Africa for up to three years. Crucially, if they are spending more than six months here in a year, they need to register with SARS to pay tax.

This could go some way towards mollifying public resentment since one of the major current critiques of digital nomads is that they benefit from South African public services and spaces (roads, beaches and so on) for months on end without paying tax beyond VAT.

The question is whether digital nomads will bother to secure a remote work visa – when under the current system it is perfectly possible for them to stay in South Africa for long periods without one.

On forums like Reddit, one of the selling points of Cape Town as a digital nomad destination is how easy it is to live there indefinitely after initially entering on a 90-day tourist permit.

“You can practically stay here forever without being a resident,” one poster enthused.

“Come into the country, extend [your tourist visa] for another 3 months to 6 months. After 6 months you take a vacation and come back. Just repeat.”

Many nomads do what they term a “border run” or a “visa run”, instead of extending their tourist visa.

Amy, a Canadian digital nomad, explained the system in a 2023 YouTube video.

“Another way to get around this visa extension [issue] is by doing a visa run, which is what I did. In order to do a visa run you need to go to a non-neighbouring country for an unspecified amount of time,” she said.

Amy ended up taking a holiday in Zanzibar for two weeks.

“There aren’t any hard rules about how long you should be gone. However, if you’re only gone for about three or four days, and then you come back and try to get a fresh visa, they might only give you a week or two weeks because they think you’re just trying to do a visa run.”

To work in South Africa, even remotely, without a work permit is technically illegal.

Online, nomads swap tips: “Yes you can simply come to SA on a tourist visa and work from there. Nobody cares. Just tell the immigration officer you’re there for tourism.”

Are digital nomads skewing Cape Town’s rental market?

It depends on who you ask.

Neil Viljoen, a ReMax estate agent working largely in the City Bowl and Atlantic Seaboard areas, says the arrival of digital nomads has been a “massive player in the market”.

Viljoen said that many Cape Town-based property agencies now target digital nomads in their advertising.

“We have people coming for three, four, five months at a time and they pay good money. For a one bedroom, they’ll pay R25,000-R30,000 a month.”

Online, a common refrain from digital nomads is that Cape Town allows them to live “a 5-star lifestyle on a 3-star budget”: 3-star by Western standards.

Dutch vlogger Chris Schaap explained in a 2022 video: “You really have two options: you either stay in the City Bowl, or near the ocean”.

Showing viewers his 65 square-metre one-bedroomed apartment, Schaap said: “For an entire month, I pay around €1,600 [R30,451]. I think this is incredible value for money if you compare this to a short stay anywhere in Europe or North America”.

For locals, the Cape Town rental market in the central and coastal suburbs is eye-wateringly expensive; the median Western Cape salary in 2022, the most recent year for which Stats SA has released data, was R5,500 a month.

Of late the rental stock has also been shrinking due to the high number of properties being used either for short stays or for AirBnBs: as has been widely reported, Cape Town now has more AirBnB listings than cities like Florence, Berlin and Barcelona.

Alderman Vos strenuously defended Cape Town’s mushrooming short-term rental industry to Daily Maverick, saying that AirBnB “supported almost 50,000 jobs and contributed more than R23.5-billion to the South African economy in 2022”.

This year, videos on social media have shown hundreds of Capetonians queuing to view a single rental property, while stories abound about locals being outbid for rentals by foreigners who can offer six months’ rent or more upfront.

“It’s a symptom of a broader issue,” Ndifuna Ukwazi’s Jonty Cogger told Daily Maverick: the prioritisation of the luxury residential market, which caters for less than 10% of Capetonians.

Thus far, the City of Cape Town has shown no appetite to introduce regulation to cap rents – though Cogger points out that this would not be unprecedented for the city. He says that during apartheid, suburbs like Thornton had rent control for white tenants.

Cogger acknowledges that the question of “how much [government should be] willing to get involved in property markets” is a vexed one, due to the concern of dissuading investment. But foreign investors are themselves a disruptive force in the Cape Town property market.

“These developments keep going up and it’s fair to assume that they’re being bought up in batches by foreign investors.”

Alexa Horne, managing director of DG Properties, says the two major factors driving the Western Cape property boom are international investors and domestic semigration.

“These are primarily South African professionals and international investors seeking lifestyle and economic opportunities, not necessarily foreign digital nomads,” Horne told Daily Maverick.

She said the primary influences on Cape Town’s steep property prices were the sense of economic stability brought by the GNU, the reductions in load shedding, interest rate cuts and the city’s lifestyle appeal.

“Digital nomads might contribute marginally to rental demand, but they’re not the primary catalyst for our property price increases. They’re a visible trend, but not the fundamental economic driver many assume them to be.”

Yet that doesn’t stop them being scapegoated.

A report in Vox about digital nomads in Mexico City offers a revealing clue as to why:

Many residents acknowledge that it’s unproductive to blame foreigners for structural issues like housing, but they often have no other outlet for their frustration. As one Mexican blogger put it, “I feel like I can’t do anything directly against the housing bubble, but at least I can get some sort of satisfaction out of taking it out on what I’ve appointed as one of its representatives.”

“Digital nomads, go home!”

These stickers can be found around Mexico City: just one of the global spots where hostility towards digital nomads has been rising steadily over the past few years.

One digital nomad based in the Canary Islands received over 400 “bullying” messages from locals, calling her a “coloniser” after she posted a video online about one of her co-working ventures.

There are many places worse hit by the impact of remote workers than Cape Town. Costa Rica has seen sleepy beach spots rendered unaffordable to families who have spent annual holidays there for generations.

In digital nomad communities, there are certain ways of digital nomading considered more socially responsible than others. Some maintain that it is more ethical to stay in a hotel than in a residential property; others believe that it is incumbent on digital nomads to get involved in volunteer activities for NGOs in their host cities.

On Reddit, one common bit of advice nomads share is to avoid identifying themselves as digital nomads due to the growing antipathy.

Doubtless as a result of this rancour, Daily Maverick found it very difficult to persuade digital nomads in Cape Town to speak to us, despite reaching out to both individuals and online nomad groups.

The sole individual willing to talk to us asked to be identified only as Taylor from Toronto, who works remotely in logistics and who is currently undertaking her third three-month stint in Cape Town.

“Cape Town has blown up this year on the digital nomad scene, I think because the electricity problems were brought under control,” Taylor told Daily Maverick.

“Before then, it was the one thing you would hear all the time: South Africa is so beautiful and so affordable, but the electricity issues make it not that great for remote working. Now it’s like that roadblock is out of the way.”

She said the general consensus was, however, that Cape Town was less desirable as a digital nomad destination than places like Bali and Thailand because of the safety issue, particularly for female travellers.

Taylor was aware of the negative image of digital nomads in places like Spain and Portugal, but said that she hadn’t experienced any personal hostility in Cape Town.

“In practice I find that people in Cape Town are extremely friendly,” she said. DM


For further information

If you are a property owner, Airbnb host, or tenant with any questions on rental housing legislation or landlord–tenant relations, 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: