Municipality's Obligation to Provide Accommodation

In a recent case, the Johannesburg High Court noted the responsibilities of municipalities when dealing with evictions that could make unlawful occupiers homeless. Here is what happened and why it matters for property owners.

The case at hand

The case involved an owner who bought a property in 2019. They intended to lease out the units on this property. It was clear that they had the legal right to evict the current occupants, who were living there unlawfully. However, the main issue was that many of these occupants would become homeless if they were evicted.

Legal requirements for eviction

To obtain an eviction order under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act), it must be shown that the eviction is just and equitable. Courts have consistently ruled that evictions leading to homelessness are neither just nor fair. However, delaying evictions indefinitely because of potential homelessness would unfairly deprive property owners of their rights under section 25 of the Constitution.

The role of municipalities

In such situations, the local municipality has two main responsibilities:

1. Provide a comprehensive report. This report should detail the personal circumstances of the unlawful occupiers.
2. Offer temporary accommodation. If eviction would lead to homelessness, the municipality must, within its means, provide temporary alternative housing in line with section 26 of the Constitution (the right of access to adequate housing).

Creating such reports and arranging temporary housing takes time. The court pointed out that anyone buying land with long-term occupiers should be prepared for some delays and show patience.

The court's decision

The court ordered the local municipality to provide temporary alternative accommodation within four months. This accommodation is for households earning less than R3,500 per month. Notably, income from child support grants should not be included when calculating this threshold. The municipality also tried to limit help to those legally in the country, but the court ruled against this, stating that proof of legal residency should not be required.

Implications

This case sets a general guideline that households earning less than R3,500 per month are considered at risk of homelessness if evicted. It also emphasises the need for local municipalities to adopt similar policies to ensure fair treatment of unlawful occupiers.

What this means for landowners

Landowners should be aware that eviction processes can be delayed while the courts ensure that the municipality provides necessary reports and temporary housing. This case shows that while landowners have rights, these must be balanced with the need to prevent homelessness.

Understanding these responsibilities and legal nuances helps both property owners and occupiers navigate the complexities of eviction fairly and justly.

Related Africa Estate guidance

• Tenancy rights in South Africa: the tenant-side view of the Rental Housing Act and Consumer Protection Act protections.
• Residential property glossary: definitions of voetstoots, latent defect, occupation and other terms used in property disputes.

Buying a property where existing occupants will need to be evicted? Contact Africa Estate. We will flag the risk on the offer to purchase and refer you to an attorney experienced in PIE Act applications before you sign.

This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. The PIE Act 19 of 1998, sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and the relevant case law govern evictions in South Africa. Always consult an attorney before any eviction process.