However, landlords will still need a court order to evict tenants.
Landlords will have to prove before the court that their financial hardship is caused by non-paying tenants. Picture: iStock
Proposed amendments to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) are going to make eviction law simpler and faster, with landlords who are struggling financially due to non-paying tenants getting the upper hand.
The minister of Human Settlements, Thembi Simelane, published the proposed amendments in the Government Gazette for public comment on 16 April 2026, following Cabinet approval. Citizens have until 06 August 2026 to comment on the amendments.
The PIE Act was established in 1998 to prevent random evictions and to address historical injustices where people were removed from land without due process.
Challenges with the Act as is
According to the department of Human Settlements, there are several key gaps in the current legislative and administrative framework.
“First, ambiguities in PIE’s definitions, such as what constitutes a ‘home’ or ‘alternative accommodation’, lead to inconsistent judicial interpretations.
“Second, the lack of a national eviction monitoring system means that government is unable to track eviction trends, assess impacts or plan adequately for emergency or transitional accommodation.
“Third, municipalities frequently lack clear funding streams for alternative accommodation, resulting in court-ordered obligations that cannot be met in practice.
“Finally, insufficient coordination among the South African Police Service (Saps), municipal law-enforcement officials, sheriffs and provincial human settlements departments contributes to chaotic or unlawful enforcement of eviction orders.”
Why amend the eviction Act?
The department said due to the aforementioned challenges, the proposed amendments to the Act seek to address the cycle of unlawful occupation of land and the illegal, often violent, evictions that perpetuate poverty, social instability and rights violations.
Amendments also aim to clarify statutory definitions, strengthen procedural safeguards and institutionalise early engagement, mediation and meaningful consultation.
It further seeks to establish clear intergovernmental responsibilities and funding arrangements for alternative accommodation, improve land management practices, and create a national eviction monitoring and reporting system.
“Currently, hundreds of thousands of people face evictions without legal recourse or consideration of their socio-economic rights, often during vulnerable times,” said the department. “These practices undermine constitutional protections, exacerbate urban inequality, and leave low-income households in precarious and unsafe conditions far from economic opportunities.”
Understanding the Act
Senior Legal Counsel at TPN Credit Bureau, Rowan Terry, said the PIE Act rests on three foundational principles:
“No person may be evicted without a court order. Any attempt to remove an unlawful occupier outside of this process is a criminal offence.
“Secondly, there are strict procedural safeguards in place: occupiers and municipalities must receive proper notice of eviction proceedings, giving them an opportunity to participate and defend the matter.
“Thirdly, courts must determine whether an eviction is ‘just and equitable’ in the circumstances.”
Unlawful occupation
Terry said the third foundational principle of the act is where most eviction matters are decided.
Courts are required to look beyond ownership and consider the broader context, including how long the occupier has been in the property, whether alternative accommodation is available, and whether vulnerable individuals are affected.
“The Amendment Bill keeps this framework intact but begins to refine what courts must consider when making that ‘just and equitable’ decision,” he said. “One of the most notable shifts is the introduction of intention as an express factor.”
In simple terms, courts will now be required to consider why the unlawful occupation took place. This does not mean that an occupier acting in bad faith will automatically lose protection, but it does mean that the circumstances surrounding the occupation will carry more weight than before.
2 to 5 years for unlawful occupation
Terry noted that the amendments also strengthen the criminal provisions relating to unlawful occupation by expanding the offence to include anyone who incites, arranges, or organises such occupation, even where no money changes hands.
“The potential penalty has increased from imprisonment of 2 years to 5 years, signalling a clear policy intention to clamp down on orchestrated land invasions,” he said.
Another notable proposed amendment includes tougher penalties for organised land invasions, including fines of up to R2 million and possible asset forfeiture for people who illegally “sell” plots of land they don’t own.
Once the amendments come into law, courts will gain explicit permission to grant an eviction order without requiring a municipality or the state to provide alternative land or shelter. Where a court does order temporary alternative accommodation, it must set a strict expiration date rather than an open-ended arrangement.
Landlords facing financial distress
The law does not allow landlords to evict a tenant for non-payment. They would first need to obtain an eviction court order, which is quite a lengthy and costly process.
However, the proposed amendments also favour landlords who find themselves unable to meet their own financial obligations due to non-paying tenants.
“Landlords who can prove undue financial hardship may get access to a fast-tracked eviction process, aimed at preventing owners falling into foreclosure while awaiting enforcement,” said Terry.
Courts will consider municipalities’ resources
Terry noted that under the amendments, courts are required to consider the resources available to municipalities when assessing whether eviction is just and equitable, reinforcing the idea that the availability of alternative accommodation is not just a theoretical question, but a practical one.
The overall effect of the Bill can be summarised quite simply. It does not remove the protections afforded to unlawful occupiers, nor does it make evictions easier or harder in a blanket sense. Instead, it:
- places greater emphasis on the circumstances and intention behind unlawful occupation,
- requires a more detailed, evidence-based enquiry by the courts, and
- introduces more certainty and structure around alternative accommodation orders.
For property owners, this means eviction proceedings are likely to become more nuanced. For occupiers, it means that personal circumstances, and the reasons behind their occupation, will be more closely scrutinised.
Those who wish to comment on the proposed amendments, can summit their views to [email protected].
The comments can also be hand delivered at 240 Justice Mahomed Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria or direct them to the Director General, Department of Human Settlements, Private Bag x 644, Pretoria, 0001.
