Nov 19
0

Bid to evict District Six pensioner dismissed

By | Eviction news

Reprinted from GroundUp, by Marecia Damons – 2025-11-18

Court rules an eviction would be unjust given Noor-Banu Allie’s age, limited income and deep ties to District Six

  • The Western Cape High Court has overturned an eviction order against a District Six pensioner.
  • 78-year-old Noor-Banu Allie has lived in District Six since childhood, surviving apartheid-era forced removals. She has rented her current home since 2006.
  • Her landlord sought to evict her because the property was supposedly unsafe, but the court rejected this.
  • The City of Cape Town could not offer alternative accommodation, and the court ruled eviction would not be just or equitable given Allie’s age, limited income and deep ties to District Six.
  • The eviction application was dismissed with costs.

A 78-year-old District Six pensioner, a survivor of the forced removals from District Six during apartheid, has won her appeal against an eviction order.

The eviction application, brought by her landlord, sought to remove Allie from the home she has rented since 2006. It would have forced her out of the neighbourhood she has lived in for most of her life. Her monthly rental is about R2,200 a month. With her monthly pension and social grant income of R6,721, she would not be able to afford other accommodation in the area.

Judge Vincent Saldanha of the Western Cape High Court opened his judgment by citing the history of District Six: “Having withstood the dispossession and displacement of over 60,000 Black people from District Six through the Group Areas Act of 1957, Ms Allie has, despite the demolition of the home in which she lived, by the bulldozers of apartheid’s henchmen, through sheer perseverance, remained in District Six.”

Read the judgment here

Allie has lived in District Six since she was a child and has rented a semi-detached house in the area since 2006. Her family home and butcher shop on Hanover Street were demolished in the 1970s.

She later attempted to lodge a land restitution claim, but was unsuccessful.

She resubmitted it in 2015, but the Constitutional Court’s Land Access Movement of South Africa ruling halted the processing of new claims, leaving her stuck in a stalled system for a second time.

The eviction application was brought by managing agent Waleed Ras on behalf of Westminster Property Developments, which bought the house in mid-2023.

In his affidavit, Ras claimed Allie’s lease had ended and that the property was “unsafe” and required significant renovations that could not be completed while she lived there.

The landlord issued two notices to vacate in 2023 and then approached the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). The magistrate accepted the landlord’s case and granted the eviction.

But on appeal, the High Court found there was “simply no legal basis” for the lease cancellation. Allie provided extensive documentation showing she had held continuous, formal leases since 2006, had consistently paid rent, and had repeatedly asked the landlord to carry out maintenance.

She also supplied photographs showing the home was habitable.

The court found no evidence that the house was derelict or unsafe, and noted that the landlord had refused her offer to move into the vacant neighbouring unit while repairs were done.

The judge described the renovation justification as a “ruse” and said the landlord had changed its legal basis “opportunistically”. Initially, the landlord relied on the need for renovations. Later, they attempted to use Section 5(5) of the Rental Housing Act, which regulates month-to-month leases. Judge Saldanha found this shift “disingenuous”.

The judge also pointed to Allie’s financial situation. She receives “a total of R6,721 per month” from her Government Employees Pension Fund benefit and SASSA Older Persons Grant. Her monthly expenditure is approximately R4,900, including “rental of R2,200, transport costs of approximately R100 per month … and a monthly cost of water, electricity and her telephone accounts.” Provision for food was “no more than R2,000 per month”. The court found she would not be able to secure alternative accommodation anywhere in Cape Town on this income.

No alternative accommodation

The City of Cape Town and the provincial Department of Social Development (DSD) were both asked to report on possible alternative accommodation. The City had no emergency housing available and advised her to apply to different social-housing providers. With help from her lawyers, she contacted each one. All rejected her due to age limits, income thresholds, lack of available units, or exclusion of pensioners. The judge described the City’s report as “most unhelpful” and said it had effectively sent her “on a wild goose chase”.

DSD social workers found she was not frail, did not qualify for frail-care accommodation, and had no family in Cape Town who could take her in. They recorded her request to remain in the community she has known for decades.

The High Court concluded that evicting Allie would not be just or equitable. She cannot afford private rental housing, she has long-standing ties to the area, and the unresolved restitution process has removed any viable alternative.

The judge said, “The irony is not lost that the entrance to the well-established District Six Museum … lies directly across the very Magistrates’ Court that has relegated the 78-year-old Ms Allie to homelessness.”

Concluding his judgment, Judge Saldanha wrote: “Ms Allie was not simply seeking to exercise a personal preference or a wish to choose where she may live. The history and desperation of all people who were unlawfully and maliciously dispossessed of their homes under apartheid from District Six speaks for itself. To ignore her voice in the context of the circumstances of this particular matter was nothing more than to disregard the longstanding fight for justice in its true sense for the people of District Six”.

The eviction application was dismissed with costs.

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.

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: