Striking a balance: the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026

On 16 April 2026, the Minister of Human Settlements published the Draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026 ("the Bill") for public comment. 

The proposed amendments represent the most substantial reform of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 ("PIE") in many years.

Whilst several of the amendments merely codify principles already developed through our courts, others introduce entirely new mechanisms that may materially alter the balance between the constitutional protection of property rights and the right of access to adequate housing.

The amendments appear directed at three broad objectives: strengthening measures against organised unlawful occupations and building hijackings, increasing the participation of organs of state in eviction proceedings, and clarifying the role of alternative accommodation in the eviction process.

Defining Alternative Accommodation

For the first time, PIE would contain a statutory definition of "alternative accommodation". The Bill defines it as temporary accommodation provided by an owner, organ of state or person in charge that prevents persons from being rendered homeless and that is reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account prescribed housing standards, location and available resources.

The absence of a statutory definition has long been a source of uncertainty despite alternative accommodation being central to eviction jurisprudence for many years. In that regard, the amendment is a welcome attempt to provide greater legislative clarity.

However, the inclusion of private owners within the definition raises interesting questions. Our courts have generally treated the provision of emergency or temporary accommodation as a responsibility of the State flowing from section 26 of the Constitution. The Bill's wording arguably leaves open the possibility that a court may, in exceptional circumstances, consider whether a private owner is capable of making alternative accommodation available.

Whether the legislature intended to create such a possibility is uncertain. This aspect of the Bill may ultimately require judicial interpretation.

Land Invasions and Building Hijackings

One of the most significant amendments appears in section 3.

The current prohibition against receiving money in exchange for facilitating unlawful occupation is expanded considerably. The Bill now prohibits any person from inciting, arranging, organising, or permitting unlawful occupation of land. It further clarifies that prohibited consideration includes membership fees, administration charges, service connection fees, infrastructure contributions, and similar payments associated with unlawful occupation schemes.

Persons convicted under the section may face fines of up to R2 million, imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Courts will furthermore be required to order the forfeiture of money and assets derived from unlawful occupation schemes.

These amendments appear deliberately targeted at organised land invasion syndicates and the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of hijacked buildings, such as those within metropolitan CBDs.

In many instances, unlawful occupations have evolved beyond mere shelter-seeking and have become organised commercial enterprises. Buildings are occupied, subdivided, administered, and effectively operated as unlawful rental schemes, often generating substantial income for individuals with no lawful entitlement to the property. Occupiers are frequently required to pay rental, administration fees, service charges, and other contributions to persons who neither own nor lawfully control the buildings concerned.

The forfeiture provisions are particularly significant. Rather than merely criminalising the conduct, the Bill seeks to remove the financial incentive that drives many organised unlawful occupations. If enacted, these provisions may provide owners, law enforcement agencies, and municipalities with a more effective mechanism to combat both land invasions and building hijackings.

This amendment is undoubtedly welcomed.

Mandatory Participation of Human Settlements and Municipalities

The Bill seeks to expand the role of organs of state in eviction proceedings. Currently, PIE requires notice of proceedings to be served upon the municipality having jurisdiction. The Bill goes further by requiring service upon both the relevant municipality and the relevant provincial department responsible for human settlements. In addition, those entities, together with any other organ of state having an interest in the proceedings, must be joined as parties to the litigation.

Whilst municipalities have already become regular participants in PIE matters through judicial development of the law, the requirement for mandatory joinder now places the issue beyond doubt. Importantly, the Bill also recognises the central role played by provincial human settlements departments in the provision of emergency accommodation and housing interventions.

Whether this amendment results in more meaningful participation by organs of state remains to be seen. One of the recurring frustrations experienced by property owners is that municipalities frequently fail to engage substantively with eviction proceedings despite being obliged.

Removal of the Six-Month Distinction

A further proposed amendment is the deletion of the distinction between occupations of less than six months and occupations exceeding six months.

Under the current PIE framework, section 4(6) and section 4(7) establish separate considerations depending upon the duration of the unlawful occupation. The Bill abolishes this distinction and replaces it with a single "just and equitable" enquiry requiring courts to consider all relevant circumstances, including the circumstances of the occupation, the duration thereof, the availability of alternative accommodation and the rights of vulnerable groups.

Whilst the amendment undoubtedly simplifies the statutory framework, it may ultimately make it more difficult for landowners to obtain eviction orders.

The existing distinction recognises that the circumstances of a recent occupation are materially different from those of an occupation that has persisted for many years. Once that distinction falls away, housing-related considerations may arise in virtually every PIE matter irrespective of how recently the occupation commenced. If that occurs, the amendment may unintentionally increase rather than reduce the burden placed upon property owners.

Whether the amendment ultimately streamlines or complicates eviction proceedings will depend largely on how the courts interpret and apply the revised provisions.

Compensation for Improvements and Structures

The Bill substantially expands the powers of courts when granting eviction orders.

Courts will be empowered to make orders concerning the retention or demolition of structures, the retention or harvesting of crops, and compensation relating to improvements, materials, structures, or crops. The court must consider factors such as consent, usefulness, hardship, and overall fairness before granting such relief.

A controversial aspect of this amendment is that where compensation is awarded, an eviction order may not be executed until the compensation has been paid or adequately secured.

Whilst there may be circumstances in which compensation is justified, particularly where improvements were effected with the owner's knowledge or consent, many property owners are likely to question whether a person found to be an unlawful occupier should be entitled to compensation before vacating unlawfully occupied property.

This amendment is likely to generate debate should it ultimately become law. The prospect of an owner being required to compensate an unlawful occupier before recovering possession of property may be viewed by some as further diluting the protection ordinarily associated with ownership rights.

Alternative Accommodation and Eviction Orders

The Bill expressly empowers courts to order that alternative accommodation or land be made available as a condition of eviction and, where such accommodation is temporary, to determine the period for which it must remain available.

In reality, however, alternative accommodation remains one of the greatest obstacles to the effective implementation of eviction orders. In many matters municipalities either fail to engage meaningfully with the litigation, provide vague reports regarding available housing, or simply lack sufficient resources to accommodate affected occupiers.

The consequence is often prolonged litigation and repeated postponements, with private landowners bearing the financial and practical burden of delays arising from failures within the public housing system.

Importantly, however, the Bill also introduces a provision confirming that a court may grant an eviction order without requiring a municipality or any organ of state to provide alternative accommodation or land.

This may prove to be the most significant amendment contained in the Bill.

The Constitution does not expressly provide that alternative accommodation must exist before every eviction order can be granted. Rather, the availability of alternative accommodation has historically been one factor amongst many relevant considerations in determining whether an eviction would be just and equitable.

Over time, however, the practical application of PIE has often created the perception that alternative accommodation has become an indispensable prerequisite to eviction. In many matters, property owners have found themselves unable to vindicate their rights because municipalities have failed to provide reports, identify land, secure temporary accommodation, or meaningfully participate in proceedings.

The proposed amendment appears to reaffirm an important principle: whilst alternative accommodation remains a relevant and often important consideration, it is not necessarily decisive in every case. The ultimate enquiry remains whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order having regard to all relevant circumstances.

If enacted, this provision may assist in restoring a more balanced approach to PIE litigation by ensuring that municipal failures do not automatically prevent otherwise justified eviction orders from being granted.

Urgent Evictions

The Bill also amends section 5, which deals with urgent eviction applications.

Courts will now be required not only to consider the risk of substantial harm and the balance of hardship between the parties, but also whether granting the urgent eviction would be just and equitable having regard to the circumstances of the unlawful occupation, including its pace, scale and frequency.

This amendment appears aimed at addressing organised land invasions where large numbers of occupiers rapidly establish unlawful occupations over a short period. It may strengthen the ability of landowners to obtain urgent relief in genuine invasion situations whilst preserving judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards.

The mandatory joinder and notice provisions applicable to ordinary PIE proceedings are similarly extended to urgent applications.

Evictions at the Instance of Organs of State

The Bill also amends section 6, which regulates evictions instituted by organs of state.

The amendment aligns the considerations applicable to section 6 proceedings with those contained in section 4 and removes the separate list of factors currently contained in section 6(3). The result is a more uniform approach to eviction proceedings irrespective of whether the applicant is a private owner or an organ of state.

From a procedural perspective, this amendment is sensible and should reduce unnecessary distinctions between different categories of eviction applications.

Mediation

The amendments to section 7 seek to encourage greater use of mediation.

Most notably, where the municipality itself is the owner or person in charge of the land, the relevant Member of the Executive Council responsible for human settlements will no longer merely have a discretion to appoint a mediator. The appointment of a mediator becomes mandatory.

This amendment reflects a growing recognition that many eviction disputes involve broader housing and social issues that may be better resolved through negotiated solutions than prolonged litigation.

Conclusion

The Bill, to an extent, represents an attempt to recalibrate the balance between property rights and housing rights within South Africa's constitutional framework.

Several amendments merely codify principles already established through years of judicial development. Others, particularly those directed at organised land invasions, building hijackings, and municipal participation, are likely to be widely welcomed.

Certain amendments, however, are likely to prove controversial. The proposed compensation regime and the removal of the six-month distinction may increase the burden on property owners.

Perhaps most significantly, the Bill appears to recognise that whilst alternative accommodation remains an important consideration in eviction proceedings, it should not necessarily become an insurmountable obstacle to the enforcement of ownership rights. Whether the final legislation ultimately succeeds in striking that balance remains to be seen.

Fraser Stockley

BCom Law; LLB

Partner at Le Roux Vivier Attorneys

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm. This content is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the law may change and its application depends on the specific facts of each matter. Readers should seek professional legal advice before acting on any information contained herein. The firm and the author(s) accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.