In South Africa, property ownership is protected by the Constitution. But that right doesn’t automatically allow a landowner to remove people from their property without following strict legal procedures. This is especially true when dealing with hijacked buildings – properties taken over illegally by third parties, often criminal syndicates that rent units and collect cash without the owner’s consent.
What Is a Hijacked Building?
The term “hijacked building” describes a property that has been taken over without the legal owner’s authority. Occupiers may pay rent to someone posing as a landlord, prevent the real owner or agents from accessing or managing the building, and often interfere with municipal services. Criminal syndicates run many such operations, particularly in inner cities. But this criminal trend has silently made its way into smaller suburbs in recent years.
These hijackings can put owners in a difficult position. They lose control of their investment, remain obliged to pay municipal rates and taxes, and face safety and security risks associated with their buildings.
The Law That Governs Evictions: The PIE Act
The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (PIE) is the primary statute that governs evictions in South Africa. PIE was enacted to align with the Constitution, which states that no one may be evicted from their home or have their home demolished without a court order that considers all relevant circumstances.
Here is what that means for property owners:
A Court Order Is Required
Only a court order can authorise eviction. A landlord, body corporate, agent, or security company cannot lawfully evict occupiers by using force, changing locks, cutting utilities, or intimidation. Such actions are unlawful and can result in criminal or civil liability.
The “Just and Equitable” Test Applies
In deciding whether to grant an eviction order, the court must determine whether the eviction would be just and equitable. This involves balancing:
- the owner’s constitutional right to property and ability to use and manage it;
- the occupiers’ personal circumstances, including length of occupation, vulnerability, presence of children, disability, or age;
- the availability of alternative accommodation or temporary emergency housing, especially if eviction would result in homelessness.
Even if the occupiers are unlawfully present, the court may delay an eviction if removing them immediately would cause undue hardship.
Steps for Owners to Reclaim a Hijacked Property
Reclaiming control of a hijacked building requires a structured legal process.
Gather Evidence
The owner must collect proof of ownership such as title deeds, document incidents of unlawful occupation, report criminal activity, and record any diversion of rental income or interference with management. Detailed evidence strengthens the court application.
Serve Proper Notices
Before approaching the court, written notices must be served on the occupiers and the relevant municipality. The municipality is typically required to report on the availability of alternative accommodation, which can influence the court’s decision.
Launch a PIE Application
An attorney prepares and files a formal eviction application in court. The application outlines the facts, confirms ownership, and explains why eviction is sought. Landlords must issue a notice of intent to institute legal eviction processes 14 days before the court date. This notice must provide the following details:
- that the proceedings are being instituted in terms of subsection (1) for an order for the eviction of the unlawful occupier;
- indicate the date of the court hearing;
- detail the reasons why eviction is sought;
- state that the unlawful occupier is entitled to attend the court proceedings and defend their case.
* If you are unable to issue the notice to the occupant yourself, you can request the court to make certain services and processes available to you.
Enforcement by the Sheriff
If the court grants an eviction order, it is enforced by the Sheriff of the Court, often with assistance from the South African Police Service to maintain order. Property owners are not permitted to carry out the eviction themselves.
Urgent Interdicts Where Necessary
If hijackers threaten violence, block access, or interfere with utilities, owners may seek urgent court relief in the form of an interdict while the eviction process continues.
Ongoing Responsibilities of the Owner
Even if a building has been hijacked, the registered owner remains legally responsible for certain obligations.
- Municipal rates and taxes remain payable, regardless of unlawful occupation.
- Compliance with safety regulations and municipal bylaws remains the owner’s responsibility.
This creates financial pressure for many owners, particularly where rental income has been diverted or lost.
Practical Challenges
Property owners often face prolonged legal processes, especially where municipalities struggle to provide alternative accommodation. Criminal syndicates may intimidate legitimate owners or delay proceedings through procedural challenges.
The law seeks to balance two constitutional rights: the owner’s right to property and the occupiers’ right to housing and dignity. This balancing act can result in lengthy court processes.
South African law does protect property owners. However, those rights must be exercised through proper legal channels. Evictions must follow the requirements of the PIE Act and must be authorised by a court after considering all relevant circumstances.
Owners cannot resort to self-help measures. While the process may be time consuming, it provides a lawful framework for reclaiming property and restoring control.
Sources: sdlaw.co.za | groundup.org.za | gov.za
Written by: Ofentse Lamola