The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) is an act of the

Parliament In modern politics, and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries. Th ...

South Africa South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the Southern Africa, southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded to the south by of coastline that stretch along the Atlantic Ocean, South Atlantic and Indian Oceans; to the ...

which came into effect on 5 June,

1998 1998 was designated as the ''International Year of the Ocean''. Events January * January 6 – The ''Lunar Prospector'' spacecraft is launched into orbit around the Moon, and later finds evidence for frozen water, in soil in permanently s ...

, and which sets out to prevent

arbitrary Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". It is also used to refer to a choice made without any specific criterion or restraint. Arbitrary decisions are not necess ...

eviction Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. In some jurisdictions it may also involve the removal of persons from premises that were foreclosed by a mortgagee (often, the prior owners who defaulted on a mortgag ...

s. In terms of the

Constitution of South Africa The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It provides the legal foundation for the existence of the republic, it sets out the rights and duties of its citizens, and defines the structure of the Gover ...

, "No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions." PIE sets out the procedure to be followed in the case of such evictions. In ''

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers ''Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers'' Constitutional Court in 2004 in South Africa">2004, is an important case in South African law, with significance especially for post-apartheid property rights and constitutional supremacy. Fact ...

'', the

Constitutional Court A constitutional court is a high court that deals primarily with constitutional law. Its main authority is to rule on whether laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e. whether they conflict with constitutionally established ...

found that it "expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law."

Eviction procedure

The eviction procedure excludes the ''

rei vindicatio ''Rei vindicatio'' is a legal action by which the plaintiff demands that the defendant return a thing that belongs to the plaintiff. It may be used only when the plaintiff owns the thing, and the defendant has wrongly claimed or assumed possession ...

'' and other common-law remedies for the vindication of ownership rights. PIE has application also where the occupation was lawful to begin with but became unlawful later. Different procedures are set out under PIE for private owners, urgent applications and organs of state. Notice must be given at least fourteen calendar days prior to the hearing and should include the following: * notification that proceedings have been instituted; * the date of the hearing; * the grounds for the proceedings; and * information as to the right of appearance. In the case of private owners, the court will consider the length of the occupation. If it has been less than six months, an eviction order will be made only if it is "just and equitable" to do so, "after considering all the relevant circumstances, including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women." If it has been more than six months, the eviction order must still be just and equitable, but the circumstances to consider are compounded by the question of "whether land has been ..or can reasonably be made available ..for the relocation of the unlawful occupier." An exception to this is "where the land is sold in a sale of execution pursuant to a mortgage." Urgent applications are granted where harm is eminent "to any person or property if the unlawful occupier is not forthwith evicted from the land,", where "the likely hardship to the owner or any other affected person ..exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawful occupier," and where no other effective remedy is available.

Case law

In ''

Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes ''Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and Another, Amici Curiae)'' is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, ...

'', an application was brought by the authorities in

Cape Town Cape Town ( af, Kaapstad; , xh, iKapa) is one of South Africa's three capital cities, serving as the seat of the Parliament of South Africa. It is the legislative capital of the country, the oldest city in the country, and the second largest ...

seeking the eviction of the persons in the Joe Slovo informal settlement under of PIE, arguing that the property was needed for the development of affordable housing for poor people. The High Court granted the order, and the residents appealed to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they were not unlawful occupiers, having obtained the consent of the authorities, and therefore could not be evicted. The court granted the eviction but ordered that alternative accommodation be provided to the occupiers. In ''Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers'', the municipality sought an eviction order against unlawful occupiers of municipal land, at the behest of adjacent land owners. The High Court granted the order, but on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals the order was quashed. The Municipality, in turn, appealed to the Constitutional Court, which held that there is no unqualified constitutional duty on local government to provide alternative housing in terms of PIE "In general terms, however," wrote Sachs J, "a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available, even if only as an interim measure pending ultimate access to housing in the formal housing programme." In ''

Blue Moonlight Properties v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue ''Blue Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another'', an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Judge Thokozile Masipa on 30 May 2008, with judgment hande ...

'', the respondent, a private landowner, served a notice of eviction on the occupiers. They resisted, claiming protection under PIE and alleging that they were entitled to continue their occupation until the

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality is a metropolitan municipality that manages the local governance of Johannesburg, South Africa. It is divided into several branches and departments in order to expedite services for the city. Z ...

provided alternative accommodation. The City disputed this duty; the respondents argued that its policy was arbitrary and discriminatory. The issue, then, was whether private landowners are obliged to provide alternative accommodation to unlawful occupiers in terms of PIE, or whether the burden should fall on the city. The court found that it should balance the rights of property owners under the Constitution with those of indigents and occupiers, and ruled that the landowners' right to equality would be infringed if the state were to burden them with providing alternative accommodation without compensation. The obligation to provide access was the City's, and the city could not transfer that obligation to private landowners. The court ordered compensatory relief to Blue Moonlight Properties and found that the city was in breach of its constitutional duty to provide adequate housing on a progressive basis.s 9. It was obliged to make monetary payment each month until such accommodation was found.