The PIE Amendment Bill: A Shift in How Evictions Will Be Assessed

Eviction law in South Africa has never been simple. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) was introduced to ensure that evictions are lawful, and fair. Minister of Human Settlements Thembi Simelane published it in the Government Gazette for public comment on 16 April 2026, following Cabinet approval, with the stated aim of strengthening eviction and land occupation laws, reviewing and strengthening existing legislation governing illegal occupations and evictions, and making the PIE Act more effective, easier to understand, and simpler to enforce.

At present, PIE rests on three foundational principles:

Firstly, 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.

That final requirement 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. 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. The Bill also strengthens 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.

A few other notable changes include:

– 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
– 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.
– Mandatory mediation and automatic joinder of municipalities in eviction matters, intended to reduce litigation timelines
– 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

Another important development is the move toward a more evidence-based enquiry, particularly in cases where occupation has been for less than six months. Courts will no longer look at vulnerability in broad terms alone, they will be required to consider more specific personal circumstances, including:

• the occupier’s financial means,
• their health, and
• their previous living arrangements.

This signals a shift toward a more detailed and fact-driven analysis, even at an early stage of occupation. Where the Bill is likely to have the most practical impact, is in relation to alternative accommodation. One of the ongoing challenges in eviction matters has been the uncertainty around whether alternative accommodation must be provided, by whom, and for how long. The Bill attempts to address this by expressly empowering courts to order that alternative accommodation or land be made available as a condition of eviction, particularly where municipalities or organs of state are involved in the proceedings.

The Bill goes further to require courts 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.

Ultimately, this Bill represents an attempt to bring greater clarity and consistency to an area of law that is often emotionally and legally complex. What is clear, is that this is not just a technical legal amendment, it is a policy shift that will affect how eviction matters play out across the country.

The Bill has now been published for public comment, and this is a critical opportunity for stakeholders to engage. Whether you are a landlord, managing agent, property practitioner, or a tenant, your perspective matters.

If you have views on how eviction law should evolve in South Africa, now is the time to make them heard as the comment deadline on the bill closes on 6 August 2026.