SCA denies Tshwane's land expropriation bid, enforces eviction order

Image source: nito500 – 123RF.com

Following protracted litigation, the landowner secured an eviction order, while the City of Tshwane was directed to provide alternative accommodation to the occupiers. Rather than implementing the eviction and relocation process, the City purported to take the step of expropriating the property, contending that the acquisition was necessary to facilitate access to housing for the occupiers.

The landowner challenged the validity of the expropriation, arguing that the City lacked the requisite statutory authority to do so, and was attempting to circumvent its obligations under the eviction order.

On 29 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld the challenge, finding that the City lacked lawful authority to expropriate the property and that the expropriation amounted, in substance, to an impermissible attempt to avoid compliance with the existing eviction and relocation orders.

Importance of the ruling

The Summer Season judgment is significant on several fronts.

First, it constitutes a clear reaffirmation that the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property in South Africa remains firmly protected under the Constitution and cannot be replaced by administrative expediency.

The emphasis brought by this case is that expropriation is a narrowly circumscribed power that must be exercised strictly within a valid legislative framework. By invalidating the City’s attempted expropriation, it effectively confirmed that municipalities may not rely on broad, implied, or expedient powers, nor invoke generalised social hardship, to justify interference with private ownership outside the confines of statute and the Constitution.

The judgment is particularly significant in its robust defence of the rule of law and the binding effect of court orders. The court rejected the City’s attempt to deploy expropriation as a means of neutralising a final eviction order, emphasising that administrative action cannot trump judicial determinations.

In doing so, the court reinforced the principle that court orders are binding and must be complied with unless and until they are lawfully set aside.

Vital safeguard

For landowners, this constitutes a critical safeguard. Once an eviction order has been properly obtained and upheld in the landowner's favour, it cannot be indirectly undone through any subsequent state action. The decision further underscores that municipalities bear enforceable obligations to provide alternative accommodation and to effect relocations in accordance with court orders, rather than shifting that burden onto private landowners.

Importantly, the court did not disregard the realities of South Africa’s housing crisis. It acknowledged that occupiers had established long-standing communities, with homes, livelihoods, and social networks rooted in the land.

However, it drew a principled distinction between the State’s constitutional obligation to provide access to housing and the rights of private landowners. The primary responsibility to address homelessness rests with the State, not with individuals whose land has been unlawfully occupied.

The court reaffirmed that section 26 of the Constitution does not entitle occupiers to remain indefinitely on privately owned land of their choosing. While eviction must always be just and equitable, ownership rights are not extinguished by prolonged unlawful occupation.

This preserves the constitutional balance, and socioeconomic rights are safeguarded, but not at the cost of undermining property rights or the rule of law.

Case history

The Summer Season judgment is best understood alongside the Constitutional Court’s earlier judgment in Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd and Another [2019] (CC) (the Maledu case), which reaffirmed that strict compliance with statutory safeguards is a prerequisite for eviction orders in favour of landowners, and underscores the protection afforded to informal land rights where such rights are implicated.

Together, these cases reflect a coherent and principled approach. South African courts will not permit arbitrary expropriation or the indefinite unlawful occupation of private land.

However, that protection is not automatic; it is contingent upon strict compliance with the applicable legal framework, whether under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (the Restitution Act), Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (Pie), Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (Esta), Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights (Ipilra), the MPRDA, or any expropriation legislation.

Conclusion

The Summer Season case demonstrates that courts will robustly uphold ownership where the landowner has acted lawfully and the State has failed to do so.

By contrast, emerging jurisprudence out of the Land Court illustrates that even strong proprietary or commercial interests may falter where statutory safeguards are disregarded. The emerging position is therefore clear that ownership remains strongly protected in South African law, but its enforcement is not absolute, regard being had to substantive adherence to legality, procedure, and constitutional norms.

On one hand, the judgment may attract criticism for potentially constraining municipalities’ or, more broadly, the State’s flexibility in responding to urgent housing crises, raising questions as to how local government can practically reconcile its constitutional housing obligations with strict legality requirements.

On the other hand, it may be argued that the State is by no means precluded or constrained from responding decisively to housing challenges or from exercising its full range of powers to provide access to housing.

The case embodies the fact that responses to modern urban homelessness and the demand for minerals in rural areas must occur within the bounds of the law. Compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements cannot be overlooked in the name of expediency; it is foundational.