Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998

Last updated

Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998
Coat of arms of South Africa (heraldic).svg
Parliament of South Africa
  • To provide for the prohibition of unlawful eviction; to provide for procedures for the eviction of unlawful occupiers; and to repeal the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951, and other obsolete laws; and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
CitationAct No. 19 of 1998
Enacted by Parliament of South Africa
Assented to5 June 1998
Status: In force

The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) [1] is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which came into effect on 5 June, 1998, and which sets out to prevent arbitrary evictions.

Contents

In terms of the Constitution of South Africa, "No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions." [2] PIE sets out the procedure to be followed in the case of such evictions. [3] In Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers , [4] the Constitutional Court found that it "expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law." [5]

Eviction procedure [6]

The eviction procedure excludes the rei vindicatio and other common-law remedies for the vindication of ownership rights. PIE has application also where the occupation was lawful to begin with but became unlawful later. [7] Different procedures are set out under PIE for private owners, [8] urgent applications [9] and organs of state. [10] Notice must be given at least fourteen calendar days [11] prior to the hearing and should include the following:

In the case of private owners, [12] the court will consider the length of the occupation. If it has been less than six months, an eviction order will be made only if it is "just and equitable" to do so, "after considering all the relevant circumstances, including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women." [13] If it has been more than six months, the eviction order must still be just and equitable, but the circumstances to consider are compounded by the question of "whether land has been [...] or can reasonably be made available [...] for the relocation of the unlawful occupier." An exception to this is "where the land is sold in a sale of execution pursuant to a mortgage." [14]

Urgent applications [15] are granted where harm is eminent "to any person or property if the unlawful occupier is not forthwith evicted from the land,", [16] where "the likely hardship to the owner or any other affected person [...] exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawful occupier," [17] and where no other effective remedy is available. [18]

Case law

In Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes , [19] an application was brought by the authorities in Cape Town seeking the eviction of the persons in the Joe Slovo informal settlement under of PIE, [20] arguing that the property was needed for the development of affordable housing for poor people. The High Court granted the order, and the residents appealed to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they were not unlawful occupiers, having obtained the consent of the authorities, [21] [22] and therefore could not be evicted. The court granted the eviction but ordered that alternative accommodation be provided to the occupiers.

In Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, the municipality sought an eviction order against unlawful occupiers of municipal land, at the behest of adjacent land owners. The High Court granted the order, but on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals the order was quashed. The Municipality, in turn, appealed to the Constitutional Court, which held that there is no unqualified constitutional duty on local government to provide alternative housing in terms of PIE [23] "In general terms, however," wrote Sachs J, "a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available, even if only as an interim measure pending ultimate access to housing in the formal housing programme." [24]

In Blue Moonlight Properties v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue , [25] the respondent, a private landowner, served a notice of eviction on the occupiers. They resisted, claiming protection under PIE and alleging that they were entitled to continue their occupation until the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality provided alternative accommodation. The City disputed this duty; the respondents argued that its policy was arbitrary and discriminatory. The issue, then, was whether private landowners are obliged to provide alternative accommodation to unlawful occupiers in terms of PIE, [26] or whether the burden should fall on the city. The court found that it should balance the rights of property owners under the Constitution [27] with those of indigents and occupiers, [28] and ruled that the landowners' right to equality [29] would be infringed if the state were to burden them with providing alternative accommodation without compensation. The obligation to provide access was the City's, and the city could not transfer that obligation to private landowners. The court ordered compensatory relief to Blue Moonlight Properties and found that the city was in breach of its constitutional duty to provide adequate housing on a progressive basis. [30] It was obliged to make monetary payment each month until such accommodation was found.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlord</span> Owner of a rented building, land or real estate

A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant. When a juristic person is in this position, the term landlord is used. Other terms include lessor and owner. The term landlady may be used for the female owners. The manager of a pub in the United Kingdom, strictly speaking a licensed victualler, is referred to as the landlord/landlady. In political economy it refers to the owner of natural resources alone from which an economic rent is the income received.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joe Slovo, Cape Town</span> Place in Western Cape, South Africa

Joe Slovo is an informal settlement in Langa, Cape Town. Like many other informal settlements, it was named after former housing minister and anti-Apartheid activist, Joe Slovo. With over 20,000 residents, Joe Slovo is one of the largest informal settlements in South Africa.

The N2 Gateway Housing Pilot Project is a large housebuilding project under construction in Cape Town, South Africa. It has been labelled by the national government's former Housing Minister Lindiwe Sisulu as "the biggest housing project ever undertaken by any Government." Even though it is a joint endeavour by the National Department of Housing, the provincial government of the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town, a private company, Thubelisha, has been outsourced to find contractors, manage, and implement the entire project. Thubelisha estimates that some 25,000 units will be constructed, about 70% of which will be allocated to shack-dwellers, and 30% to backyard dwellers on the municipal housing waiting lists. Delft, 40 km outside of Cape Town, is the main site of the Project.

The N2 Gateway Occupations saw large numbers of government-built houses occupied illegally by local residents of Delft in the Western Cape during December, 2007. The houses in question were the new Breaking New Ground (BNG) houses in the Symphony section of Delft near the main road Symphony Way. This was the largest occupation of houses in South Africa's history.

<i>Street v Mountford</i>

Street v Mountford[1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy, or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007</span> South African provinial law

The KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007 was a provincial law dealing with land tenure and evictions in the province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951</span>

The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act No 52 of 1951, formed part of the apartheid system of racial segregation in South Africa. This act authorized the forcible removal of squatting communities. It allowed eviction and destruction of homes of squatters by landowners, local authorities, and government officials. It was commenced on 6 July 1951.

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] ZACC 7 decided by the Constitutional Court in 2004, is an important case in South African law, with significance especially for post-apartheid property rights and constitutional supremacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 23, 2002, with judgment handed down on August 30.

Blue Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Judge Thokozile Masipa on 30 May 2008, with judgment handed down on 12 September.

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

<i>Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association</i> South African legal case

Minister of Public Works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association and Others, an important case in South African law, was decided by the Constitutional Court on May 29, 2001.

Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein.

In 2009, the Anti-Land Invasion Unit was created by the City of Cape Town in an effort to stop people from illegally attempting to occupy land. In 2011 the City stated that the unit demolished about 300 shacks each month. The Anti-Land Invasions Unit is the biggest unit in the City's law enforcement operation.

In March 2013 around a thousand people occupied a piece of land in Cato Crest, Durban and named it Marikana after the Marikana miners' strike. Mayor James Nxumalo blamed the occupation on migrants from the Eastern Cape. He was strongly criticised for this by the shack dwellers' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo who said that "The City Hall is red with blood".

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

On 27 April 2013, the national public holiday of Freedom Day in South Africa which some grassroots social movements have termed UnFreedom Day, members of Abahlali baseMjondolo occupied a piece of land in Philippi, Cape Town. They named the occupation Marikana after the Marikana miners' strike. The occupation was repeatedly destroyed by the city's anti-land invasion unit. According to the Daily Maverick the occupiers were evicted on six separate occasions. Two months after the eviction 90 people were still sleeping on the site under a tent.

Land invasion in South Africa is seen as the illegal occupation of land with the intention of erecting dwellings or establishing a settlement on it and is an issue that is affecting various municipalities in South Africa especially in the face of increased urbanisation in bigger metropolitans like The City of Cape Town, eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.

References

Books

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ Act 19 of 1998.
  2. ↑ s 26(3).
  3. ↑ Mostert & Pope 217.
  4. ↑ 2005 (1) SA 217 (CC).
  5. ↑ Para 37.
  6. ↑ "How to evict a tenant from a residential property". 1 November 2022.
  7. ↑ Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika 2003 (1) SA 113 (SCA).
  8. ↑ s 4.
  9. ↑ s 5.
  10. ↑ s 6.
  11. ↑ Section 4(2) of the PIE Act
  12. ↑ s 4.
  13. ↑ s 4(6).
  14. ↑ s 4(7).
  15. ↑ s 5.
  16. ↑ s 5(1)(a).
  17. ↑ s 5(1)(b).
  18. ↑ s 5(1)(c).
  19. ↑ 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC).
  20. ↑ s 5.
  21. ↑ s 6(1)(a).
  22. ↑ In terms of s 1(ii), consent may be "express or tacit [...] in writing or otherwise."
  23. ↑ s 6(3).
  24. ↑ 233G-H.
  25. ↑ 2009 (1) SA 470 (W).
  26. ↑ s 4.
  27. ↑ s 25.
  28. ↑ s 26.
  29. ↑ s 9.
  30. ↑ s 9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.