The Department of Human Settlements has published the Draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026, inviting public comment on significant proposed changes to the current legal framework governing evictions in South Africa.
These amendments signal a shift toward greater procedural regulation, increased accountability for unlawful occupation, and a more structured role for municipalities and the courts.
These amendments are being introduced as the current PIE Act has faced ongoing challenges in its application, particularly in response to increasing levels of unlawful land occupation, organised land invasions and building hijackings, municipalities’ financial burden to provide alternative accommodation and uncertainty and inconsistent interpretation by courts.
The Bill introduces and refines key definitions, including to “Alternative accommodation”, which is defined as temporary and subject to minimum standards, broader definition of land to explicitly including buildings and structures, and a clarified definition of unlawful occupier, excluding certain protected categories.
One of the most significant changes is the introduction of stricter provisions relating to unlawful occupation.
It will now be an offence to arrange or facilitate unlawful occupation, incite or organise occupation, even without financial gain or to receive any form of payment linked to unlawful occupation.
Penalties may include fines of up to R2 million or imprisonment, reflecting a stronger stance against organised land invasions.
The Bill introduces a requirement that applications to Court for an eviction join not only the relevant municipality but also the provincial department of human settlements and any other interested organ of state.
The proposed amendments do however refine the process for eviction applications by removing rigid distinctions based on the length of occupation, requiring courts to consider broader factors such as the scale and frequency of unlawful occupation and expanding the court’s discretion in determining what is just and equitable.
Courts will be given clearer authority to order the provision of alternative accommodation, determine whether such accommodation should be temporary and set conditions and timeframes for relocation. At the same time, courts may, in appropriate circumstances, grant eviction orders without requiring alternative accommodation, depending on the facts of the case.
A notable development is the introduction of mandatory mediation in certain cases. Where the municipality is the landowner, the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) must appoint a mediator to facilitate resolution between the parties.
The Bill gives courts wider discretion when granting eviction orders, including the ability to order demolition or retention of structures, award compensation for improvements or materials and to consider fairness, hardship, and the conduct of the parties.
The amendments at least purport to provide equal protection for property owners and developers on one hand and the occupiers on the other.
While alleging greater protection against organised unlawful occupation, more structured and enforceable eviction processes to benefit the landowner, it also increases procedural requirements and involvement of state entities.
Unlawful occupiers on the other hand continue to enjoy constitutional protection against arbitrary eviction and now greater clarity on rights and access to alternative accommodation while also increasing regulation of organised occupation activities.
The Draft PIE Amendment Bill at least attempts to represent itself as one of the most significant proposed changes to eviction law in recent years. While it introduces stronger protections for property owners in some respects, it also increases procedural complexity and places greater responsibility on all parties involved. This ultimately raises the costs of litigation. It is therefore imperative that landowners be reminded to conclude valid, clear and enforceable lease agreements with properly vetted tenants. Properties need to be monitored for unlawful occupation to ensure that when occupation does take place, urgent action be taken involving the SAPS and potentially urgent court relief rather than exposing themselves to greater risk or protracted and expensive litigation.