Tag

eviction rights Archives | Eviction Lawyers South Africa

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 attorneys in Cape Town can answer your questions about rental housing rights, the eviction process guide, 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.

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: