By Liad Hadar – Director
This article first appeared in Asset Magazine’s July 2026 edition

Few pieces of legislation have shaped South African property law as profoundly as the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, commonly known as the PIE Act.

When it came into effect in 1998, it represented a fundamental shift in our legal landscape. For the first time, eviction was no longer viewed simply as a commercial dispute about ownership or contractual rights. It became a constitutional exercise, requiring courts to balance a property owner’s rights against the dignity, housing rights and personal circumstances of those facing eviction.

In fact, when I started practising law in 2009, 21 years after the PIE Act came into effect, everyone was still working out how to evict residential tenants! To this day people often tell me that they’ve heard that it is impossible to evict a residential tenant. To this, I always tell them of the Hadar Incorporated motto – “It’s a question of when, not if”.

At the time of the introduction of the PIE Act, the legislation was both necessary and progressive. It gave practical effect to section 26 of the Constitution and sought to ensure that no one could be rendered homeless through an arbitrary eviction, therefore protecting a key constitutional right (to housing). It also protected other constitutional rights (to dignity) and protection of vulnerable groups (women headed households, the elderly, children and disabled individuals).

It did however also allow for numerous technical and practical procedural issues, compounded by unchartered hypothetical and ethical issues, leading to uncertainty in court proceedings.

Nearly three decades later, after numerous interpretational definitions through thousands of cases and some landmark decisions in the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court, an important question is now being asked throughout the property industry – has the balance shifted too far?

The Reality on the Ground

As someone who has spent my entire career representing managing agents, landlords and property owners, I have witnessed first-hand how the practical application of the PIE Act has evolved.

The overwhelming majority of landlords are not seeking to evict tenants without cause.

More often than not, they have honoured their contractual obligations, followed the prescribed legal processes, lawfully cancelled lease agreements and ultimately approached the courts only after every reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the occupier.

Yet obtaining an eviction order is frequently only one part of the journey.

Opposed applications, procedural disputes, appeals and delays can often extend litigation for many months, sometimes years. During this period, landlords continue carrying the financial burden of unlawful occupation while opportunities to re-let premises or recover on arrears owing are placed on hold and in the case of arrears, sometimes never to be successfully pursued.

This has led many within the property industry to question whether the current legislative framework always distinguishes sufficiently between genuinely vulnerable occupiers deserving constitutional protection and those who deliberately exploit procedural safeguards to delay inevitable outcomes.

A Recognition That the System Can Improve

The proposed PIE Amendment Bill appears to finally acknowledge that concern.

The Bill has not yet been enacted into law and Parliament may still amend its provisions before they become operative. Nevertheless, it provides valuable insight into the direction policymakers believe residential eviction law should take.

What is particularly encouraging is that the proposed amendments do not seek to dismantle the constitutional protections contained in the existing PIE Act.

On the contrary, they seek to improve the way those protections operate in practice by creating greater certainty, improving procedural efficiency and addressing conduct that has increasingly frustrated both property owners and municipalities.

Finally, it feels like the landlord’s rights are being considered fairly against the right of the tenant.

Some of the Most Significant Proposed Changes

One of the most notable proposals is the introduction of specific criminal offences aimed at those who organise, facilitate or profit from unlawful land occupations.

For many years, the law has focused primarily on unlawful occupiers themselves. The proposed amendments recognise a reality that property owners and their property lawyers have long experienced, that organised land and property invasions are often orchestrated by individuals who unlawfully allocate, let or even sell land that does not belong to them.

The Bill proposes significant penalties for such conduct, including substantial fines, imprisonment and, in certain circumstances, the forfeiture of assets derived from these unlawful activities.

Another important proposal is the expansion of the definition of a “person in charge”.

This would, in certain circumstances, allow municipalities and other entities exercising control over land to approach the courts directly for relief, even where they are not the registered owner, perhaps also widening the net to allow a property manager to assist with the required instructions and signing affidavits in support of residential eviction proceedings.

It recognises the practical reality that unlawful occupations often create immediate municipal challenges and unnecessary practical and procedural delays long before ownership issues are resolved.

The proposed amendments also seek to provide courts with greater procedural flexibility.

Rather than relying solely on rigid timelines relating to the duration of occupation, courts would have broader discretion to consider the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the occupation, the availability of alternative accommodation and the interests of all parties involved.

The Bill further contemplates clearer powers for courts regarding temporary alternative accommodation and, where appropriate, the demolition or removal of unlawful structures erected during unlawful occupations.

Collectively, these proposals suggest a move towards greater clarity rather than greater rigidity and the breeding ground for delay tactics.

Property Rights and Housing Rights Are Not Opponents

One of the misconceptions that often dominates public debate is that property rights and housing rights somehow compete with one another.

They do not. Both enjoy constitutional protection.

The challenge has always been finding an appropriate balance between them.

By way of example:

• A lawful property owner is entitled to recover possession of their property.

Vs

• An unlawful occupier is entitled to procedural fairness and judicial oversight.

Neither right should automatically eclipse the other.

The real strength of South Africa’s constitutional framework lies in its ability to accommodate both yet determine which right supersedes the other within any particular set of circumstances.

Why Certainty Matters

Perhaps the greatest benefit of legislative reform is not that it favours one side over another.

It is that it creates certainty. Residential property owners can invest and operate with greater confidence when legal processes are more predictable.

Bank or institutional funding can value residential assets with less fears and concerns.

Landlords can make informed investment decisions knowing that contractual rights will ultimately be enforceable within more reasonable timeframes.

Even occupiers benefit from greater certainty because expectations become clearer from the outset.

Given our decades of experience with property owners and landlords, our belief at Hadar Incorporated is that a legal system should not simply produce fair outcomes. It should produce them efficiently and consistently. Delays should be eliminated by clearer and more practical legislation.

Looking Ahead

Whether the PIE Amendment Bill is ultimately enacted in its current form remains to be seen.

Like all legislation, it will continue to evolve through public participation, parliamentary debate and constitutional scrutiny but perhaps its greatest contribution has already been achieved.

It has reignited an important national conversation about how South Africa balances constitutional compassion with commercial certainty and confidence to invest in the residential property asset class.

After almost thirty years, perhaps the question is no longer whether the pendulum has swung. The more important question is whether we are finally finding the balance that the Constitution intended all along but was not adequately achieved in the first iteration of the PIE Act.

If these proposed reforms ultimately succeed in delivering greater certainty while preserving fairness, they will strengthen not only property rights and investment in residential properties but confidence in South Africa’s property market as a whole.

Ultimately thriving property markets are built not only on strong rights, but on predictable processes, balanced laws and confidence that justice will be administered fairly for everyone – least of all a landlord who has, for all these years, seemingly been up against it all!