Eviction law in South Africa sits at a delicate crossroads between constitutional rights and the legitimate interests of property owners. As courts continue to evolve their approach to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act, No. 19 of 1998), landmark rulings from 2025 and early 2026 are reshaping how landlords, tenants, and unlawful occupiers navigate this complex legal terrain. Whether you are a landlord seeking to reclaim your property or a tenant facing removal, understanding the law — and what the courts are saying today — is essential.
The Legal Framework: The PIE Act at Its Core
South Africa’s eviction process is governed primarily by the PIE Act, which requires that no person can be evicted from their home without a court order. The Act mandates a structured process: correct legal classification of the matter, cancellation or termination of the right to occupy, a formal court application, service of a court-authorised PIE notice through the Sheriff, and a hearing where the court determines whether eviction is “just and equitable”.
The Constitution also underpins this process. Section 26(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa explicitly prohibits arbitrary evictions, and the right to access adequate housing is a consideration courts must weigh before granting any eviction order. This means evictions in South Africa are never a simple administrative process — they are a constitutional event.
Rasmeni v Mbuku and Another: The Delft Property Eviction
One of the most talked-about recent cases is Rasmeni v Mbuku and Another, heard in the Western Cape High Court. In this matter, the court declared the occupier unlawful and ordered her to vacate the property by 31 March 2026. However, what makes this case significant is not just the outcome but the judicial reasoning behind it.
The court carefully considered whether the eviction was just and equitable in terms of the PIE Act, ultimately providing the occupier with a reasonable period for relocation. This reflects a growing judicial trend in South Africa: even where an occupier has no legal right to remain, courts will not simply open the door and push them out. The constitutional right to adequate housing demands that occupiers are given a realistic opportunity to find alternative shelter before a forced removal takes effect.
For landlords, this case reinforces that patience and procedural compliance are non-negotiable. For tenants, it demonstrates that constitutional arguments — even without a lease agreement — still carry weight in court.
Free State Development Corporation v Telgobrite: Lease Breaches Have Consequences
Closer to home for Bloemfontein residents is the Free State Development Corporation v Telgobrite case, decided in the Free State High Court in 2025. The respondents were classified as unlawful occupiers after failing to meet their contractual obligations — including non-payment of rent — and the court upheld the eviction order under PIE.
This ruling sends a clear message: lease breaches are serious, and courts will act on them. The case underscores the importance of documenting all rental payments and keeping lease agreements updated. For landlords, it confirms that properly documented evidence of breach significantly strengthens an eviction application.
Sebesho v Lekalake and Others: PIE Meets Customary Land
In early 2026, the North West High Court dealt with an unusual and important case — Sebesho v Lekalake and Others — involving an eviction application based on land encroachment between adjacent customary land allocations. This case is particularly significant because it explores the grey zone where PIE intersects with traditional land rights, a frontier that affects millions of South Africans living on communal or tribal land.
The court’s engagement with this matter highlights that the reach of the PIE Act extends beyond urban landlord-tenant disputes into complex rural and communal land questions. As urbanisation continues and informal settlements expand, these boundary-related eviction matters are expected to increase.
Gippert and Another v Rochat and Others: Balancing Constitutional Rights
The 2025 High Court decision in Gippert and Another v Rochat and Others reaffirmed a fundamental principle: courts must carefully balance the constitutional right against arbitrary eviction with the equally valid rights of landowners. The judgment clarified that neither party has an absolute right — the law demands equilibrium.
This ruling is a useful reminder that simply owning a property does not guarantee an automatic eviction order. Courts scrutinise whether the eviction application is procedurally sound, whether the occupier is vulnerable, and whether granting the order is proportionate under the circumstances.
Broader Judicial Trends in 2025–2026
Several broader trends are emerging from South African courts that both landlords and tenants must note:
Informal Trader Removals: The Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI) took the City of Johannesburg to the High Court in late 2025 over the removal of informal traders, highlighting how eviction principles extend beyond residential settings to economic livelihoods.
District Six Searle Street Eviction: Five longstanding occupants were ordered to vacate after losing their legal challenge, demonstrating that historical occupation alone does not guarantee tenure security.
Matrimonial Property Disputes: The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld eviction outcomes in divorce cases, reinforcing that court orders — including those arising from divorce settlements — will be enforced regardless of personal hardship.
Practical Takeaways for Landlords and Tenants
South African eviction law is not a landlord’s tool or a tenant’s shield — it is a balancing mechanism rooted in constitutional values. Recent case law in 2025–2026 consistently demonstrates these guiding principles:
- Courts will always consider the personal circumstances of occupiers, especially children, the elderly, and disabled persons.
- Strict compliance with PIE procedures — correct notices, proper Sheriff service, and municipal notification where required — is non-negotiable for landlords.
- An unopposed eviction typically takes 3 to 6 months, while contested matters can extend to 12 months or more.
- Tenants can raise constitutional defences, including the lack of alternative housing, as valid grounds to defer or contest eviction.
Legal representation has never been more important. With courts raising the bar for procedural compliance and constitutional sensitivity, both landlords and tenants in South Africa stand to benefit significantly from engaging a qualified eviction attorney before taking any action.
