On 16 April 2026, the Minister of Human Settlements, Thembisile Simelane, published the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026 (Bill). The Bill proposes one of the most substantial revisions to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (PIE) since its enactment. It seeks to clarify key definitions, create new offences, revise the factors governing eviction orders, require the joinder of relevant state bodies and make mediation mandatory in certain matters involving municipal land. The proposals affect both the enforcement of property rights and the protection of occupiers from homelessness.
Alternative accommodation
PIE does not currently define “alternative accommodation”; the concept has instead developed through case law, including Grootboom and Blue Moonlight. The Bill defines it as reasonable temporary accommodation provided by an owner, organ of state or person in charge that prevents homelessness and complies with minimum National Housing Code standards. The definition may improve legal certainty and confirms the temporary nature of such accommodation. However, its express reference to an owner may also be interpreted as extending responsibility beyond the state to private landowners. If enacted, the scope of that responsibility and its relationship with the state’s constitutional obligations are likely to require careful judicial consideration. The temporary nature of the alternative accommodation may also pose questions on the states duty to progressively realise the right to housing.
Expanded definitions of “evict”, “land” and “person in charge”
The Bill defines eviction as the deprivation of occupation of “land” and expands “land” to include any building or structure on it. This simplifies the statutory language and confirms that PIE applies to occupation of open land as well as buildings or structures. The proposed definition of “person in charge” also shifts the focus from authority to permit entry or residence to legal authority to administer or control land. This may allow persons such as duly authorised property managers to invoke PIE remedies, even where they cannot personally grant occupation rights.
Revised definition of “unlawful occupier”
The current definition excludes occupiers protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) and the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA). The Bill retains the ESTA exclusion and addresses labour tenants under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act but proposes bringing IPILRA rights holders within PIE’s definition of “unlawful occupier”. This would broaden PIE’s reach to persons who may hold customary, communal or other informal land rights. Those rights could still be raised in eviction proceedings, but the amendment may expose IPILRA rights holders to PIE proceedings more readily and could attract constitutional or interpretive challenge.
New offence relating to unlawful occupation
The Bill creates an offence of inciting another person to occupy land without the owner’s consent. It also prohibits specified fees, payments and other consideration connected with organising unlawful occupation, while excluding funds raised exclusively to finance litigation opposing eviction. A conviction may result in a fine of up to R2 million, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. A court may, where just and appropriate, direct that forfeited money or assets be returned to victims; if victims cannot be identified, the proceeds must be paid to the National Revenue Fund or the relevant municipality. These measures appear directed at organised or profit-driven land occupations rather than legitimate access to legal representation.
Section 4 procedure and remedies
The Bill requires the relevant provincial department of human settlements to participate in eviction proceedings and requires the joinder of any organ of state with an interest in the matter. This may improve coordination and reduce delays where a court order engages public-law duties. The Bill also removes the current distinction between occupation for less than six months and occupation for more than six months. It replaces that distinction with a single framework under which the court considers whether eviction is just and equitable, the circumstances and duration of occupation, the availability of suitable alternative accommodation and the rights of vulnerable groups. The proposed remedial powers are broader. A court may order the retention of structures or improvements, permit the harvesting of crops, or award compensation for improvements, structures or crops. Where compensation is ordered, execution of the eviction order may be suspended until payment is made or guaranteed. The Bill also permits a court to make eviction conditional on alternative accommodation being provided by a municipality, organ of state or joined landowner, but allows eviction without state-provided accommodation where the court considers this just and equitable. Collectively, these provisions give courts greater flexibility, while potentially increasing the cost and complexity of proceedings for landowners and state bodies.
Urgent evictions
For urgent applications, the Bill retains the need to address imminent and substantial harm but adds an express just-and-equitable enquiry that includes the circumstances, pace, scale and frequency of the occupation. Before the hearing, written notice must be given to the unlawful occupier, the relevant provincial department of human settlements and the municipality. The notice must also set out the relief sought.
Mandatory mediation for municipal land
Where a municipality owns the land, the appointment of a suitably qualified mediator by the responsible provincial Member of the Executive Council would become mandatory rather than discretionary. The proposal may encourage earlier resolution, although its effectiveness will depend on timely appointment and meaningful participation by the parties.
Conclusion
The Bill seeks to modernise PIE, improve procedural coordination and give courts a more adaptable remedial framework. The clarified definitions of “land” and “alternative accommodation”, mandatory joinder of relevant state bodies and mediation in municipal-land matters may promote consistency and efficiency. At the same time, the possible extension of accommodation obligations to private owners, the inclusion of IPILRA rights holders and the expanded compensation and retention powers may have significant constitutional and practical consequences. The central question is therefore not whether the Bill favours one group, but whether its final form achieves a workable and constitutionally sound balance between property rights, dignity and access to adequate housing. Stakeholders should assess both the intended policy outcomes and the operational burdens created by the proposed amendments.
--
Read the original publication at Fasken
.jpg)
