summary

It creates a major new criminal offence targeting anyone who incites, arranges, organises, or permits people to unlawfully occupy land or property, even if they do not receive money for doing so.

Those found guilty face a maximum fine of R2,000,000.00, up to two years of imprisonment, or both.

The formal legal definitions of “evict” and “land” are explicitly expanded to cover buildings, structures, and portions of land.

This is designed to close legal loopholes used by syndicates who hijack inner-city buildings and illicitly collect rent from vulnerable occupiers.

Crucially, the Bill gives courts the explicit discretion to grant an eviction order without requiring a municipality or organ of state to provide alternative land or accommodation.

Where alternative housing is ordered, it is redefined strictly as a temporary emergency measure to prevent homelessness, aligned with the National Housing Code.

Courts can now stipulate a fixed expiration date for this temporary shelter to stop people from staying indefinitely and straining municipal resources.

Currently, the law considers whether someone has occupied land for less or more than six months.

The Bill deletes these time frames entirely, ensuring all unlawful occupiers are treated equally under the law, and requires courts to heavily weigh the pace, scale, and frequency of land invasions in the area.

The relevant municipality and provincial department of human settlements must be formally joined as parties to any eviction court proceedings.

If a municipality owns the occupied land, a mandatory mediation process must be initiated by the provincial Executive Council to avoid prolonged litigation.

The Bill aims to address the rapid surge in unlawful land occupations and inner-city building hijackings across South Africa. The government intends to use these amendments to protect property owners, restore investor confidence, and relieve municipalities of the massive financial burden of providing alternative housing indefinitely.

The Bill was published by the Minister of Human Settlements, Thembisile Simelane. Yes, public participation is open; the draft has been issued for public comment for a period of 60 days following its publication on 16 April 2026.

The Bill introduces severe criminal consequences. Anyone found guilty of inciting, arranging, or permitting unlawful occupation faces:

• • A fine of up to R2,000,000.00.
  • Imprisonment for up to two years.
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.

No. The Bill explicitly creates a second offence targeting individuals who incite, arrange, or organize land invasions even if they do not receive any money or consideration for doing so.

• • Any money or assets bought with that money must be ordered forfeited by the court.
  • This forfeited money/property must be paid back to the victims if they can be identified.
  • If the victims cannot be identified, the funds are paid into the National Revenue Fund or directly into the local municipality’s operating account if the municipality administers the land.

Yes. The Bill expands the definition of “land” to explicitly include portions of land and any buildings or structures erected on them. This closes loopholes frequently exploited by syndicates who take over inner-city high-rises and illicitly extract rent from residents.

Pace and Scale: In urgent and standard eviction proceedings, courts must now heavily weigh the pace, scale, and frequency of unlawful occupations in that area.

Timeframes Deleted: The Bill eliminates the current distinction between someone who has occupied land for under six months versus over six months. This is intended to ensure all unlawful occupiers are treated equally under the law without procedural differentiation.

Vulnerable Groups: Courts will maintain a requirement to review the specific rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons, and households headed by women.

The Bill introduces mandatory joinder. This means that the relevant local municipality, the provincial department of human settlements, and any other state organ with an interest must be formally made parties to the court proceedings.

No. In a major legislative pivot, the Bill explicitly states that if a court determines an occupier is unlawful, it may choose to grant an eviction order without requiring the municipality or any organ of state to provide alternative accommodation or land.

If a court decides alternative housing is necessary to prevent immediate homelessness, strict new boundaries apply:

• • It is legally defined as temporary accommodation that meets the basic minimum standards of the National Housing Code.
  • The court must explicitly stipulate a fixed timeframe for how long that temporary accommodation will remain available to the evictees. This prevents individuals from occupying emergency municipal shelters indefinitely.

To avoid lengthy, expensive legal standoffs, the Bill introduces mandatory mediation. If a municipality owns or controls the land in question, a Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of the province must appoint an expert dispute resolver to facilitate meetings and attempt to settle the matter before it drags through the courts.