- The court found that even a tent on a parking lot can legally qualify as a home under PIE protections.
- Judges ruled that unlawful occupation alone does not remove constitutional protection against eviction.
- The judgment warns landlords that eviction matters can quickly become governed by PIE requirements.
A recent court ruling has clarified when unlawful occupation becomes a legally protected home under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.
According to Jason Berkowitz, Associate Director at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Incorporated, the ruling is an important warning to landlords, investors, and property managers. Eviction matters can quickly change into PIE cases depending on the circumstances.
Berkowitz explained that the case of University of Cape Town v SML and Others (2026) showed how a simple ownership dispute can become a constitutional eviction matter. “For property owners, the key question is often not whether the occupation is unlawful,” Berkowitz said. “It’s whether the space has become the occupier’s home. Once it has, the entire legal framework changes.”
Occupiers moved back onto UCT property
The University of Cape Town had previously obtained an eviction order against a group of occupiers living in student accommodation. The parties later agreed on a date for the occupiers to vacate the property, and the agreement was made an order of court.
When the occupiers failed to leave, the Sheriff carried out the eviction. “Ordinarily, that would have been the end of the matter,” Berkowitz said. Instead, several occupiers moved onto a nearby UCT-owned parking lot where they set up a tent and continued living there without permission.
UCT returned to court asking either to enforce the existing eviction order or to remove the occupiers through its rights as the owner. However, the court focused on whether the parking lot had become the occupiers’ home.
“The real question was whether the occupiers had established a home on the parking lot because PIE applies only when a person is being evicted from their home,” Berkowitz explained.
Berkowitz explained that PIE does not define the word “home,” meaning courts must decide the issue based on the facts of each case. “Our courts look at lived reality, not paperwork,” Berkowitz said. “A home isn’t defined by a lease or ownership. It’s defined by whether the space functions as a shelter with some degree of regular occupation and permanence.”
UCT relied on an earlier Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, which found that student accommodation is generally not considered a home under PIE. However, the court said that this principle is not absolute and depends on the facts of each case.
The court found that some occupiers had no realistic alternative accommodation because the addresses previously given to UCT were outdated or no longer available.
As a result, the court accepted that the parking lot had become their home, despite being temporary accommodation.
Unlawful occupation is still protected
The court also found that the occupiers’ unlawful conduct did not automatically remove their constitutional protections.
The occupiers had already agreed to vacate, the agreement had been made a court order, they had been lawfully evicted, and their continued occupation breached that process.
“Even so, the court held that this does not determine whether PIE applies,” Berkowitz said. “Unlawfulness, even in the face of a court order, doesn’t automatically remove constitutional protection. If the occupiers have established a home and would face homelessness if evicted, PIE still applies.”
The court dismissed UCT’s application because the matter had not been brought under the correct legal process. Any future eviction proceedings would need to start fresh under PIE.
Berkowitz said the judgment should serve as a warning to landlords and property owners. “Circumstances can change quickly,” he said. “A matter that starts as a simple enforcement of ownership can turn into a PIE matter overnight.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
