Landmark SCA eviction ruling a wake up call for SA municipalities, warn experts

Reprinted from iol.com, by Yogashen Pillay - 2024-07-22

Municipalities have been urged to take note of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on the process of lawfully evicting illegal occupants from municipal-owned land.

This after the City of Cape Town application, to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that it had incorrectly applied its common law defence of counter-spoliation during an eviction in the Western Cape in 2020, was dismissed by the higher court.

Counter-spoliation means the immediate action to physically prevent land invasions and where occupation had not stabilised.

The SCA judgment said that counter-spoliation is only permissible where peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property has not yet been acquired.

“Once a spoliator has acquired possession of the property and the breach of the peace no longer exists, counter-spoliation is no longer permissible.”

The SCA said that pictures of the eviction process showed existing and complete structures being torn down.

“It leaves no doubt that the City did not act instantly in the captured circumstances. The occupants of the structures were removed from already erected structures.”

Legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala said that the City of Cape Town failed to follow the law.

“I understand why the SCA dismissed the application. The City had to remove the illegal occupants as soon as possible and they didn’t do that.

“When structures are already erected the City will need to get a court order to remove the occupants and they need to also find alternative accommodation.

The important thing is that municipalities must understand the law before enforcing them.”

Zakhele Ndlovu, a political science lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said that he was not surprised by the SCA judgment.

“The issue is that the City of Cape Town waited too long to evict the people. The City needed to act immediately and remove the illegal occupants and structures before they were put up.

“They allowed the occupants to settle and the law is that if they have to evict them they need to find alternative accommodation. There was also a video which showed one of the occupants being removed, while naked, which was inhumane and this all worked against the City. Municipalities need to know that they must act quickly if they need to get rid of illegal occupants and they have to do it in a humane way.”

Dr Bongekile Yvonne Charlotte Mvuyana, a senior lecturer at Mangosuthu University of Technology’s (MUT) department of public administration and economics, said that the judgment imposed by the Western Cape court requires all cities to reconsider how to deal with the increasing demand for housing which results in land invasion.

“The application of counter-spoliation when homeless people invade the municipality’s unoccupied land is critical. Municipalities are expected to satisfy the requirements of counter-spoliation to avoid litigation by communities.

“It should be noted that cities are considered better places to live, because they provide people with access to education, health services, as well as water, electricity, and sanitation.”

Mvuyana said that as more people flocked to cities, these cities must develop methods to deal with urban change in the emerging world.

Shack dweller movement Abahlali baseMjondolo said it was admitted as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) in the matter.

“We welcome the SCA judgment as a huge victory for the poor and marginalised,” it added.

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with tenants’ rights or landlords’ responsibilities.

Further reading:

Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis seeks eviction of occupants blocking City drains

City of Cape Town says Belhar families facing eviction won’t be homeless

Court grants order to evict hundreds of people living on streets of Cape Town

Court grants order to evict hundreds of people living on streets of Cape Town

But judge puts strict conditions on the way the eviction must be carried out and emphasises that the city also belongs to the evictees, as it does to those who live in mansions

Reprinted from GroundUp, by Tania Broughton - 2024-06-19

The Western Cape High Court has granted an order for the City of Cape Town to evict about 200 homeless people living at several inner-city sites.

• However, the “pavement dwellers” will have until 30 July to move and find alternative accommodation.

• Judge Michael Bishop also made orders to safeguard affected children, older people and disabled people living at these sites, and to ensure a just and lawful eviction process.

• The judge added that while the City’s accommodation in its Safe Spaces was rudimentary, “it is undoubtedly better than their current accommodation”.

The City of Cape Town has been given the green light to evict about 200 people living on the pavement at several inner-city sites. But the “pavement dwellers” will have more than a month to leave and find alternative accommodation.

The ruling on 18 June by Western Cape High Court Acting Judge Michael Bishop follows a lengthy court battle between the City and the homeless groups occupying spaces along Buitengracht Street, FW De Klerk Boulevard, Foregate Square, Helen Suzman Boulevard, Strand Street, Foreshore/N1, Virginia Avenue and Mill Street Bridge in the city centre.

The order was granted in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act.

Acting Judge Bishop ordered that the City must provide alternative accommodation at its “Safe Space” in Culemborg, which is also in the city centre. He said the homeless groups have about ten days to indicate whether they will move to this Safe Space. They should be allowed to live there for at least six months.

“Those who take up the alternative accommodation at the Safe Spaces, who are in a partnership with another [homeless person], and who require accommodation with their partner, are provided with accommodation for couples,” he ordered.

He also made orders to safeguard affected children, older people and disabled people living at these sites, and to ensure a just and lawful eviction process.

Judge Bishop said those who refused the offer of accommodation would be evicted and their structures demolished. However, their possessions must be kept in safe custody for six months.

He said he would “retain supervision” over the implementation of the order and directed the City - and the occupiers if they so wished - to file further affidavits on progress.

“This case concerns the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society - people living on the pavements in downtown Cape Town. The conditions in which they live are deplorable.

“They live next to busy roads in tents or structures constructed of plastic sheets and cardboard. They are compelled to live their lives in public, with little or no privacy. They struggle for food, shelter and warmth,” Judge Bishop said in his ruling.

He said homeless people in Cape Town do not exist separately from other residents. He added that the city belonged to them, the office workers and those who lived in mansions. This case was a reminder “that we are all a few bad decisions and some bad luck from living life on the pavements”.

He said to its credit, this was “largely the attitude” adopted by the City in its PIE application.

Judge Bishop said while the City’s accommodation in the Safe Spaces was rudimentary, “it is undoubtedly better than their current accommodation”.

It included toilets and showers, two meals a day, blankets and access to clothes.

The City had also committed to helping those who use the Safe Spaces to overcome addiction, find jobs and reconnect with their families.

He said the main gripe of the occupiers – represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI) – was that the City had not meaningfully engaged them, and that the Safe Spaces were not suitable because they had rules which separated families and restricted their freedom.

“The occupiers accept that living on the streets creates risk for their physical and mental well-being. They accept that their eviction may be warranted - but only once the City has meaningfully engaged with them and offered suitable alternative accommodation,” Judge Bishop said.

The Safe Spaces are weapon free, drug free and alcohol free. People are searched on entry, and residents are required to leave during the day, but that is flexible, he said.

On the issue of whether there had been meaningful engagement, the judge said while “not perfect” the City had met its legal obligations, and during latter engagements agreed to relax some rules to accommodate legitimate concerns.

“This is an unusual eviction. I have therefore decided to maintain light supervision of it to deal with any outstanding issues that may arise.”

He refused to grant the City a broad interdict preventing named occupiers from re-occupying other properties. The City had argued that without this, the eviction would not achieve its purpose because some occupiers would simply occupy a different pavement.

However the judge did interdict the respondents from re-occupying these properties. “If the City believes it needs the power to evict people, it must create new mechanisms that are constitutionally consistent and apply equally to everyone,” he said.

The City was ordered to pay 30% of the homeless group’s legal costs.

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with tenants’ rights or landlords’ responsibilities.

“Biased” magistrate should have recused herself, judge finds in Communicare case

Court sets aside decision by acting magistrate Venice Burgins

Reprinted from GroundUp, by Tania Broughton - 2023-05-24

The Western Cape High Court has set aside a ruling by acting magistrate Venice Burgins who refused to grant an eviction order against social housing company Communicare.

• The judges said Burgins’ social media posts showed she was hostile to Communicare and she should have recused herself.

• They ordered the case be heard afresh by a different magistrate.

Social housing company Communicare has secured a court order setting aside a decision by a “biased” Cape Town acting magistrate who refused to grant an eviction order in its favour.

In August last year, acting magistrate Venice Burgins took three hours to read out her 68-page order, on what many would have considered a straightforward eviction application.

What Communicare did not know at that time, was that Burgins was an anti-eviction activist, with a history of campaigning against the social housing company, and that she ran a social media campaign under the name of “United Action Group”.

She also participated in a social media campaign #CommunicareMustFall.

When this emerged after Communicare failed in its court bid to evict “tenants” who had not paid any rent — and had no contract — the company turned to the Western Cape High Court to have Burgins’ ruling reviewed and set aside.

Judge Ashley Binns-Ward, with Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood concurring, has now ordered that the case be heard afresh, before a different magistrate.

In his judgment, Judge Binns-Ward spells out the history of the international “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” which identify the core values of impartiality, integrity and independence for judges. These were used to flesh out South Africa’s codes of conduct.

In its review application, Communicare said Burgins’ ruling must be set aside, citing the Superior Courts Act which states that bias, malice and corruption on the part of a presiding officer would result in a gross irregularity in the proceedings.

Judge Binns-Ward said some days after the dismissal of the eviction application, a parcel had been delivered anonymously to Communicare’s offices. It contained various documents which led the company to believe that Burgins had been biased and should have recused herself. The documents showed that Burgins, on various occasions before she considered the eviction application, had published, or associated herself with, strongly worded and unambiguously hostile opinions about Communicare on social media.

In one, Burgins said: “The struggle continues and we SHALL expose the Communicare rot of exploiting our people”.

In its papers before the high court, Communicare said Burgins was a member of the social media group United Action Group and had been the administrator since February 2021 and was still the administrator. Posts on the group include some by another member, Colin Arendse, who wrote: “Massive court ruling against Communicare NPC” and stated that in a dramatic, three-hour, 63 page judgment of “seismic proportions”… the court had ruled against the company in an “epic case that is going to shake the foundations of state capture and reverberate through the corridors of justice for centuries to come”.

Arendse described Burgins’ judgment as “technically sound”.

Judge Binns-Ward, citing case law, said there was a strict duty on judicial officers to decline, of their own accord, to hear cases in which they had a personal interest in the outcome or the contested issues.

But Burgins had not opposed the application and had chosen not to explain or qualify the import of the social media posts.

“Individually, and all the more so collectively, they suggest a passionate interest in the activities of the applicant and its relationship with its tenants. They indicate that she holds the view that the applicant’s conduct is oppressive.”

“Her reference to ‘the rot at Communicare’ implies an allegation of corruption.”

Judge Binns-Ward said it was evident that Burgins’s interests and campaigning were closely related to the issue she was called upon to adjudicate.

“It was clear she nurtured a hostile view of the applicant’s management of its housing stock. She was under an ethical and legal duty in the circumstances to have declined to sit in the case.”

The Judge said while the merits of the case were not at issue, it would be “remiss” not to mention that the 63-page judgment “unfortunately contains passages that bear out that she did in fact introduce her personal issues”.

He said Communicare had initially asked for a costs order against Burgins but had retracted that, in light of her abiding by the decision of the court.

“The applicant may, of course, if so advised, pursue her impropriety with the Magistrates Commission.”

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a Cape Town law firm of specialist eviction lawyers, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, helping both landlords and tenants with the eviction process. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you are concerned about unlawful eviction or if you need advice on the eviction process.

Further reading:

Communicare wins eviction case against Ruyterwacht tenants in rent arrears of R1.6 million

Camps Bay collective rejects housing assistance as eviction deadline looms

Reprinted from News 24, by Cebelihle Mthethwa - 2020-10-08

The collective of artists, who are occupying a Camps Bay mansion they booked through Airbnb, say they will not make use of the City of Cape Town's housing assistance in Philippi as the deadline for their court ordered eviction looms.

On Friday, the Western Cape High Court ruled the collective should vacate the luxury mansion no later than 8 October.

This is the same date the City estimated emergency accommodation would be ready.

The court made the ruling after the collective argued if they were to vacate the mansion, some of them would be homeless.

However, the City made it clear those facing homelessness after their eviction would have to fill in an assessment questionnaire that would help them determine whether they should get housing in Philippi or not.

"There was insufficient time for this process to commence and be finalised, hence no formal assessment process was instituted and there is no formal obligation on the City to provide assistance," the Mayco member for human settlements, Malusi Booi, told News24.

According to him, the City had not received the completed questionnaires from the group that would enable it to determine whether they qualified for emergency accommodation.

#Weseeyou spokesperson Kelly Eve said they would no longer use the City's housing accommodation.

"We do not think that the City's housing is viable for our safety. So no, we will not be using their services."

Links added by SD Law.

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a Cape Town law firm of specialist eviction lawyers, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, helping both landlords and tenants with the eviction process. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za if you need advice on the eviction process or if you are facing unlawful eviction.

Further reading:

CAMPS BAY MANSION OCCUPIERS SERVED WITH EVICTION ORDER

Lockdown rights enforced for residents of informal settlements in Cape Town

The power of social media is immense. So much more than a mere communication tool, it’s a cornerstone of citizen journalism and can be one of the most effective ways in which ordinary people can tell important stories as they happen. What’s more, content posted on social media can be the grounds for legal action and meaningful change, as a case concerning lockdown rights recently heard at the Western Cape High Court clearly showed.

The naked man

On 1 July 2020, a video of a naked man being dragged out of his shack in an informal settlement in Khayelitsha went viral on social media. The man concerned, Bulelani Qolani, was removed from his home by City of Cape Town officials who were members of the Anti-Land Invasion Unit (ALIU). They destroyed his home shortly afterwards.

The ALIU is a specialised unit tasked with deciding which structures should be demolished on land they claim has been invaded. This work is conducted without a court order and typically refers to homes in informal settlements, which means that it usually affects some of South Africa’s most vulnerable people.

The video caused an outcry. It reminded people of the brutal forced removals that took place during apartheid, and demands for the judicial oversight of evictions and demolitions during the national state of disaster were heard. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), a state institution that is mandated to promote respect for human rights, stepped forward in response.

Together with the Housing Assembly and Bulelani Qolani, the SAHRC brought a case against the City of Cape Town as well as the Minister of Human Settlements, the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, the National Commissioner of the South African Police, the Minister of Police and the Western Cape Provincial Commissioner of the SAPS.

Lockdown rights infringed - not an isolated incident

The incident that occurred in Khayelitsha on 1 July wasn’t the only one of its kind. In fact, there were several others that took place during alert levels 3 and 4, despite that fact that evictions were meant to be suspended until the last day of the alert level period.

Some of the demolitions and evictions that occurred were as follows:

• On 9 to 11 April 2020 in Empolweni Informal Settlement in Makhaza, Khayelitsha, the ALIU demolished structures on land owned by the City. Urgent relief was given by the Western Cape High Court to a number of residents whose structures were demolished. On 17 April, the court granted an interim order, ordering the City to return building materials confiscated from Empolweni and authorising residents to re-erect and occupy structures there for as long as the lockdown continues.

• On 15 May 2020 in Ocean View, Kommetjie, evictions and demolitions took place on land that is privately owned by the Ocean View Development Trust. The City denied that evictions were conducted at the time, and said that ALIU had acted within its mandate to demolish illegally erected structures provided that they were unoccupied.

• On 29 June 2020 in Hangberg, Hout Bay, the SAHRC received a complaint alleging that City officials had demolished a structure. The Western Cape High Court declared the City’s conduct unlawful and unconstitutional and emphasised that home demolitions could not be carried out without a court order during alert levels 3 and 4.

• On 13 July 2020 in Zwelethu, Mfuleni, structures on land owned by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board in Mfuleni, which joins city-owned land, were demolished. Many of the area’s residents are desperately poor and unemployed and have been the subject of at least seven evictions carried out without a court order.

“Bleeding and in pain”

Of course, there was also the incident that received the most attention – the one that took place in Khayelitsha on 1 July. The official court papers refer to the affidavit that Bulelani Qolani gave, in which he states that while the law enforcement officers were approaching, he went inside his home and prepared to bathe: 

“He stood outside his dwelling naked and asked to be allowed to finish his bath. The law enforcement officers sprayed his neighbour with pepper spray and forcibly gained entry into Mr Qolani’s dwelling, carrying batons and guns. On entering his structure, they were already pushing up the roof to tear it apart. 

“He asked to be shown an eviction order and told them it was illegal to evict during the lockdown period. They ignored his requests, he said, handled him physically and violently, pepper sprayed him and forcefully removed him from his house, whilst still naked and in full view of residents. As Mr Qolani tried to re-enter his house, he states they shoved him to the ground and one official knelt on his back while another held him down to stop him moving.

“Eventually, after quite a struggle, Mr Qolani got back into his house and sat on his bed, his head bleeding and in pain. Whilst he was still inside, he states, the demolition was completed.”

A precedent-setting judgment

On 20 and 21 August 2020, the case between the SAHRC as the first applicant and the City of Cape Town as the first respondent was heard at the Western Cape High Court. And on 25 August 2020, judgment was delivered.

In their judgment, Judges Shehnaz Meer and Rosheni Allie declared that the City of Cape Town ALIU will not be allowed to evict people or demolish occupied or unoccupied structures without a court order while the country remains in a state of national disaster. This landmark ruling is binding in the Western Cape and may set a precedent for other provincial courts too.

What’s more, if any evictions or demolitions are conducted with a court order in place, these must be conducted “in a manner that is lawful and respects and upholds the dignity of the evicted persons”. City officials are expressly prohibited from using force, the judges decreed, and from destroying or confiscating any material on the property concerned.

SAPS members will now have to be present during evictions and demolitions to ensure they are done lawfully, in line with South Africa’s Constitution and “in accordance with the SAPS’ constitutional duty to protect the dignity of the persons evicted”. In addition, the City was interdicted and restrained from considering, adjudicating and awarding any bids or tenders received in response to a tender specifically focused on the demolition of illegal formal and informal structures in Cape Town.

The court ordered the City to return all building material and personal possessions taken by the ALIU since 1 May, and to pay R2,000 to the people identified by the Economic Freedom Fighters.

But there’s more to come. In October, additional hearings will be held to determine whether demolitions or evictions can take place without a court order once the state of national disaster has ended. It’s likely that an important conversation has begun.

Contact us

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a Cape Town law firm of specialist eviction lawyers, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, helping both landlords and tenants with the eviction process. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za if you need advice on the eviction process or if you are facing unlawful eviction.

Reprinted from sdlaw.co.za

Further reading:

• High court declares the City of Cape Town’s lockdown evictions illegal

• SAHRC: We’re against land invasions, but City of Cape Town must abide by the law

• 53 land invasions on Public Works and Infrastructure Department properties, says De Lille

When lights out means tenants out

Disconnecting the electrical supply amounts to “spoliation”

Short of time? Watch the video here.

A case came before the High Court in the Western Cape recently that dealt with the eviction equivalent of “constructive dismissal”. Electricity supply was turned off to a couple’s home, in a clear attempt to remove them from the property by making it uninhabitable. The case was complicated (this was in fact an appeal against an earlier ruling, which was upheld) and the legal particulars of it of little interest to anyone but other lawyers, but it flagged some very important issues in the landlord/tenant contract, and the case inspired us to remind you of your rights and responsibilities as a landlord.

Makeshift 1190 (Pty) Ltd v Cilliers

This case concerns an appeal of an earlier order for spoliatory relief. The word “spoliation” has the same linguistic root as the world “spoil”, and shares its meaning (“the action of ruining or destroying something”) but is little used outside of the legal context. It crops up a lot in eviction cases, and refers to the wrongful deprivation of another’s right of possession. Spoliation can occur not only through physical eviction from premises, but by rendering the premises uninhabitable. In the case of Makeshift Ltd v Cilliers, it appears that a family rift led to the father, Martinus, who inhabited the farmhouse on the family farm, cutting off the electricity supply to one of his sons and his wife (Tom and Colleen), who occupied an outbuilding on the farm, called “the store”. 

Martinus disconnected the Eskom supply when he installed a solar power generating system and no longer required electricity from the grid. However, the solar power did not supply the store, and Tom and Colleen were dependent on the Eskom supply. Furthermore, they paid all the electricity bills. When the power was cut off, Tom was away working and Colleen, alone on the property and nervous about her safety with no illumination around the building, applied for an urgent spoliation order in the Magistrate’s Court, which was granted. The case then becomes very complex and beyond the purpose of this article. You can read the full story here. 

However, the outcome of the case is that the electricity supply to the store could not be denied without a court order. According to the magistrate’s decision, “the right to electricity is not ‘purely’ personal but ‘an incident of the possession or control of the property’ served by the supply of electricity…[and] the claimant’s occupation of the premises, and his or her use of its electrical appurtenances, constitute the possession of the premises and the quasi-possession of the alleged right to electricity as an incident of his or her possession of the premises.”

In plain English…

In other words, cutting off the electricity supply rendered the premises unusable – it was an act of spoliation as defined above. The take-home message is: landlords may not do this!

What rights does a landlord have?

Rental housing legislation is premised on a fair right of occupation of a property and is strongly biased in favour of tenants’ rights. This is to redress the balance of historical wrongs, when tenants were often summarily deprived of their homes without warning. But it does not mean that landlords don’t have rights. The law also recognises the right of a property owner to the enjoyment of that property, and provides recourse to landlords whose tenants are in breach of the lease agreement.

Here’s a reminder of what a landlord can and cannot do, in the event of troublesome tenants.

You may not:

• Change the locks

• Disconnect water, electricity or gas

• Remove the tenant’s possessions

• Physically remove the tenant

• Evict a tenant without a court order

You may:

• Serve notice on the tenant to remedy a breach of the lease agreement

• Terminate the lease agreement if the breach is not remedied in the time given

• Serve notice on the tenant of your intention to seek an eviction order through the courts

• Apply to the court to have a tenant eviction order issued to the tenant

Thereafter, the matter is in the hands of the court. Only a Sheriff can evict a tenant. The tenant eviction process takes time, but if you can prove, among other things, that imminent harm will be caused by your tenant if they remain on the property for the duration, then an Urgent Eviction may be available to you. Eviction Lawyers South Africa can help you secure the necessary legal consent.

Leases, leases

Remember, it will soon be a legal requirement to have a written lease. Currently, verbal lease agreements are legally binding, but the as yet un-gazetted Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 requires landlords to have a written lease agreement in place. We can help you draft both residential and commercial leases.

Don’t forget about lockdown

One final reminder: you cannot evict a tenant under the current lockdown level 3. You may begin proceedings in the courts, but a Sheriff will not remove a tenant until the government advises that evictions may begin again. We assume this will be under level 2, but no announcement has yet been made. 

For further information

We are a Cape Town law firm specialising in eviction, also operating in Johannesburg and Durban. We act for both landlords and tenants and uphold the rights of each to a fair and satisfactory tenancy. If you have concerns about your tenancy or your tenants, contact Simon at Cape Town Eviction Attorneys on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading:

• How to evict a tenant without a lease

• Eviction: when can you evict a tenant?

• Getting rid of troublesome tenants

• Lockdown level 3: this is what you can and cannot do

• Is it legal to evict anyone during lockdown? No, say legal experts

Time to hit the “pause” button on evictions?

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa Mar 24, 2020 COVID 19, Eviction news, Eviction notice, Evictions

Elsewhere in the world legislation is ensuring tenants don’t lose their homes due to COVID 19.

As if we didn’t have enough to worry about. COVID 19 is making everyone anxious for their health. Although the vast majority of patients recover, in South Africa we have a very vulnerable population and a weak health system, so widespread infection will wreak havoc in families and communities. Furthermore, those who have recovered describe the illness as extremely unpleasant, leaving them very weak for a considerable time. It’s to be avoided at all costs, hence the severe restrictions we are all living under and the lockdown that we are about to begin. 

Beyond the literal threat the virus presents to health, up and down the country businesses have been closing, particularly in hospitality, and now all activities but essential services must cease while we all stay indoors for three weeks. If employers can’t afford to pay wages, employees will be sent home with no income. How, then, are they meant to pay their bills, including rent?

Some lenience on loan re-payments

As of 23 March, all the major banks have announced some provision for hardship caused by COVID 19. Standard Bank has announced a three-month payment holiday for small businesses with a turnover of less than R20 million, and for full-time students with student loans, to start on 1 April and run until 30 June. For other loans, including mortgage bonds, customers are urged to contact the bank. The other major banks are also assessing the situation and either inviting customers to contact them individually or waiting to see if they need to take more radical steps.

What about tenants?

Homeowners with bonds can hopefully expect some mercy, but what about tenants with rent to pay? In places where the pandemic has a tighter grip, legislative measures have been put in place to protect renters. Around the world, cities in the US and countries including Spain have temporarily halted evictions in response to the COVID 19 pandemic.

In England and Wales, the Housing Secretary has said, “Emergency legislation will be taken forward as an urgent priority so that landlords will not be able to start proceedings to evict tenants for at least a three-month period.” Up in Scotland, similar action is proposed. The Housing Minister said, “No landlord should evict a tenant because they have suffered financial hardship due to coronavirus and we are actively considering how best this can be addressed.” 

A spokesperson for a tenants’ association said: “Up and down Scotland, tenants are facing not just a major health crisis, but the prospect of destitution and homelessness too. As their workplaces begin to shut their doors, it is hard to see how tenants who are already struggling to make ends meet will be able to pay their rent. It is unconscionable that anyone should even have to worry about being evicted from their home at this time.”

The situation here in South Africa is similar, and arguably will be worse, given our levels of poverty and disadvantage. At SD Law we support the 31 NGOswho have come together to appeal to President Cyril Ramaphosa, his Cabinet and Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to follow in the footsteps of our international counterparts and forbid evictions during the current crisis. After all, in a lockdown, it makes no sense at all to put people out on the streets.

Stop the “ejectment” if not the eviction

We understand that there may be situations where the eviction is not only legitimate, but long overdue. Perhaps a tenant has significant arrears with rent or has damaged the property. We’re not advocating for the entire eviction process to be overturned in these circumstances. A fair and just procedure can be resumed in due course, when life returns to normal. But this is not the time to execute a warrant of ejectment, i.e. to put the tenant out.

Look after good tenants

We would also urge landlords to exercise leniency in the case of good tenants who suddenly cannot pay their rent because they have lost their jobs or income due to COVID 19. If a tenant has a history of timely payments and full compliance with the terms of the lease, they should be treated compassionately and a repayment plan worked out when the crisis is past.

From a purely commercial perspective, even if the appeal to our shared humanity is in vain, evicting a good tenant because they can’t pay their rent is unlikely to result in replacement income. No one is looking to move right now. And a property could sit empty far longer than the time it takes for the existing tenant to recover. Good tenants are worth looking after.

Update 27 March:

In the government gazette released last night (26/3/2020), all evictions and execution of attachment orders, both movable and immovable, including the removal of movable assets and sales run execution is suspended with immediate effect for the duration of the lockdown.

Update 26 March:

As we head into a lockdown that will straddle two months, you may be wondering what will happen if a lease expires during the three-week period? In short, no movement is allowed. A tenant cannot be forced to leave a rented property even if another tenant is lined up to move in. The incoming tenant also won’t be able to vacate their current premises. The extraordinary measures in place (see the government gazette for full list of restrictions) take precedence over other contracts in place, such as leases. Technically, landlords and tenants can pick up where they left off as soon as the lockdown is over, but in reality it may be easier for everyone simply to extend the lease by one month and push the moving-out or moving-in date back to 1 May. Everyone in the country is in the same situation.

Rent should still be paid for any occupancy beyond the lease expiry. If  the tenant is in financial difficulties, then a payment plan should be negotiated.

We’ve mentioned a “pause” on evictions to protect tenants who may be financially compromised as a result of COVID 19. But what about evictions that were already scheduled before this crisis emerged? Although the gazette does not mention eviction specifically, it is fair to assume that no movement means no movement. In effect, normal life is put on hold – paused – for three weeks. it will resume on 17 April.

Contact Eviction Lawyers for help

We are eviction lawyers in Cape Town and Johannesburg.  We act for both landlords and tenants and uphold the rights of each to a fair and satisfactory tenancy. In these uncertain times, we appeal to everyone to act with empathy and compassion. If you are worried about your tenancy or your tenants, contact Simon at Cape Town Eviction Attorneys on 086 099 5146 or email   sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading:

• Human rights in a time of pandemic

• Coronavirus: NGO’s plead with Ramaphosa to stop evictions amid global pandemic

• Wise words from Bill Gates

• The Consumer Protection Act and rental agreements

How to evict a tenant off a property if the landlord dies

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa Mar 15, 2020 Evictions, Lease Agreement

What is the eviction process if the landlord dies?

If your landlord dies, you may wonder if you still have a home or if you will suddenly be evicted. And, as a landlord, what happens if your tenant dies? Is the estate liable for the rent or are you going to be left high and dry?

What is the eviction process if the landlord or tenant dies? The short answer is…the lease remains valid. The landlord’s or the tenant’s estate is bound by the lease and must honour the terms and conditions of the agreement. (Download a lease agreement template here.)

Can you be evicted immediately if the landlord dies?

As stressed in previous articles, having a written lease agreement is crucial as it protects the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords alike and makes dealing with the above scenario a whole lot simpler. Additionally, once the Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 comes into effect, landlords will be compelled to draw up a written lease agreement. 

Lease agreements are not simply rendered invalid if the landlord dies. The tenant cannot be summarily evicted from a property. However, the terms of the lease agreement will determine the conditions under which the lease may be terminated. 

For example, a lease agreement may specify that the contract will automatically be cancelled when the landlord passes away. Should the executor of the landlord’s estate decide to sell the property, the executor is entitled to cancel the lease. Regardless of the reason for the cancellation of a lease, the landlord must generally give the tenant at least 20 working days’ to a full calendar month’s notice to vacate the premises in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act No 19 of 1998 (PIE).

If the tenant does not adhere to the time frame, the executor may then approach the court to apply for an eviction order.

When the tenant dies the estate is liable 

If the tenant dies, the estate becomes liable for the rent and must give the landlord 20 business days’ notice of cancellation of the lease. The landlord cannot remove the tenant’s belongings during that time. It may be wise for both tenants and landlords to establish the cancellation clauses in lease agreements to avoid uncertainty or any nasty surprises down the line. 

Seek expert guidance

Simon Dippenaar and Associates is a Cape Town law firm of expert eviction lawyers. We can help you navigate the complex world of lease agreements. Call Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading:

• Verbal lease agreement – is it valid?

• The Consumer Protection Act and Rental Agreements

• Eviction process: how, when and why

How to evict a tenant without a lease

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa Mar 15, 2020 Evictions, Lease Agreement

Tenants have rights with or without a written lease

Your arrangement with your tenant is not working out, and you’ve reached the point where you are considering eviction. But you don’t have a written lease agreement and you’re not sure how to evict a tenant without a lease. What now?

Firstly, you cannot take the law into your own hands. You must follow the correct process if the eviction is to be deemed lawful. Whether or not there is a written lease agreement, if a landlord allows someone to reside on a property and accepts rent, that is regarded as a de facto lease and is binding.

This scenario will soon change, however. The as yet un-gazetted Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 compels landlords to have a written lease agreement in place and is just one of the regulations that will further protect the rights of tenants and reinforce the obligations of landlords. 

Landlords and tenants will have six months to comply with the provisions of the Act once the new legislation comes into effect. All new lease agreements must be in writing and verbal agreements will no longer be binding.

Allow time to remedy a breach of contract 

If the tenant is in breach of a rental agreement, the landlord must notify the tenant in writing and allow them to remedy the situation. This might happen if there is excessive noise, there are pets on the property without permission, or rent is in arrears. Unless specified in the lease agreement, a tenant has 20 working days to rectify the breach in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). In the case of a verbal agreement, or if the lease has expired but the tenant still lives on the property with the landlord’s permission on a month-to-month basis, the landlord must afford the tenant one calendar month’s notice to make good the situation.

If the tenant fails to repair the breach within the specified time period and the matter cannot be settled, the next step is for the landlord to issue the tenant with a letter cancelling the lease. With a bit of luck, the troublesome tenant will vacate the property at the end of the notice period. However, if the notice of cancellation is ignored and the tenant refuses to leave, the landlord may have no choice but to apply to the court for an eviction order. 

The steps to eviction with or without a written lease

An eviction order will be served 14 days prior to the court hearing and, if the tenant is unable to present a valid defence at the hearing, a warrant of eviction will be issued allowing the sheriff to remove the tenant’s possessions from the property. If the tenant does present a valid defence at the hearing, a trial date will then be set.

Removing a recalcitrant tenant can be extremely frustrating, but failure to observe legal processes will result in an unlawful eviction and possible criminal action. 

The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1998 (PIE) sets out strict procedures on how to properly evict unlawful occupiers from residential properties, while prohibiting illegal evictions. It is not permissible to change the locks or turn off the water and electricity. A landlord who does not comply with PIE could face a fine or up to two years imprisonment, so it’s best to hire an eviction lawyer at this stage to ensure the correct procedure is observed.

Keep on the right side of the law

Tenants or landlords may decide to terminate a lease agreement for many reasons, but, whatever the grounds, both parties must act within the law. Simon Dippenaar and Associates is a Cape Town law firm of expert eviction lawyers who will ensure the correct procedures are followed every step of the way. We will assist with eviction notices and court appearances to secure a satisfactory outcome. Call us on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading:

• No lease, no problem. Tenants still have rights

• Verbal lease agreement – is it valid?

• The Consumer Protection Act and rental agreements

Major change in plans for land expropriation in South Africa

We’ve written previously about land expropriation. Now the ANC — the party, not the government, an important distinction to note — has proposed a new amendment to the current bill, which is still open for public comment. This article from BusinessTech explains.

The ANC is proposing a new amendment to land expropriation without compensation that will see decision-making shift from the country’s courts to a central ‘land tsar’.

The Sunday Times reports that the amendment will effectively remove the courts as the ‘decider’ on whether or not the state will pay for land it expropriates and will instead give that power to the minister of land reform.

The proposed amendment was reportedly adopted by the party at its National Executive Committee (NEC) lekgotla earlier this month and is expected to be voted on by ANC MPs in parliament in the coming weeks.

The current bill on land expropriation without compensation – which is open for public comment – states that the courts should be the arbiter when determining whether the state should pay for expropriated land.

However, the ANC’s Mathole Motshekga, who is leading an ad hoc committee on land reform, said that if the courts are to determine compensation “it will take another 25 or 50 years to sort out land reform”.

He further warned that if this new proposal was not followed it could lead to land grabs such as those seen in Zimbabwe.

“Landowners who have seen the example of Zimbabwe should be more supportive of this process because you don’t want groups of people invading the land.

“This is an orderly process. If they don’t support this they are opening themselves up to the law of the jungle. We don’t want a banana republic and we don’t want the law of the jungle,” he said.

Sneaky? 

Speaking in an interview on Thursday (23 January), Motshekga said the current bill was worded as it is to avoid controversy, and to allow the proposed amendment to be gazetted. Doing it any other way would have derailed the process, he said.

When asked if the ANC government was being “sneaky” in gazetting a proposed amendment that fully intended on changing in the future, Motshekga did not respond, only saying that the courts would take too long to make a decision.

“We have the experience that the court processes are arduous. They take time, they require resources,”  Motshekhga said.

“But the executive is a democratic government, elected by the people of South Africa, they represent the people of South Africa and they must govern.”

Motshekga added that no extension would be given for submissions to comment on the bill, which was published in December, ahead of the holidays.

The DA has previously criticised the bill, saying that it is unclear how it defines land (appearing to include property – which has a different legal definition – in with its claims), while also bypassing requirements for a two-third majority vote by putting the powers over land expropriation in separate legislation, outside of the Constitutional amendment.

The party called the publishing of the bill and the truncated comment period because of the holidays, an attempt by the ANC to rush through the changes.

Submissions for comment close at the end of January 2020.

Reprinted from Business Tech 2020-01-26. Original links retained. Additional links by SD Law.

CONTACT US

Meanwhile, if you have concerns about the expropriation bill or your property and want to talk to an expert, contact Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za

Further reading:

Expropriation without compensation

Expropriation bill and land reform - what you need to know

Expropriation bill 2015 - compensation, the vexed question

Woodstock pensioner fights her eviction

Landlord pushed up rent by 37%

Woodstock resident Amina Kamish, 63, faces possible eviction after her landlord raised her rent by 37%, which she refuses to pay.

Kamish has been living in her Woodstock home for 18 years, during which time her rent has increased by 10% annually. According to Jonty Cogger, an attorney at Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre, who has taken on her case, she lodged a complaint at the Rental Housing Tribunal arguing that the sudden 37% increase was unreasonable. She currently pays R6,800 a month.

Her landlord failed to attend the tribunal hearing, in spite of a subpoena, and approached the Cape Town Magistrates Court for an eviction order, said Cogger.

However the landlord failed to attend the hearing in the magistrates court on 16 January, so the hearing was postponed.

Cogger said the landlord’s justification for the 37% increase in rent was based on an increase in the property’s value, which meant Kamish was paying below the market level.

“He’s using gentrification as a justification for increasing the rent,” said Cogger. “This case is an example of the property crisis and eviction crisis in Cape Town. Landlords are increasingly using increased property prices, which is slowly and systematically displacing members of the Woodstock community.”

“I thought we could come to a settlement,” said Kamish. “There isn’t a single day that I didn’t look after the property.”

According to Cogger, the Rental Housing Tribunal has the power to determine what is a just and equitable rental.

Kamish is currently living with four children in her Woodstock home. She has been looking after the children since their mother has been recovering in a rehab facility.

“This is a classic case of gentrification, eviction, and displacement,” said Cogger. “Evictions are a crisis.”

This article is reprinted from GroundUp - 2020-01-16

If you are facing unfair eviction, we can help

We are eviction lawyers in Cape Town and Johannesburg, and we believe the landlord-tenant relationship should be built on trust. We act for both landlords and tenants and uphold the rights of each to a fair and satisfactory tenancy. If you are facing an unreasonable rent increase or an unfair eviction, contact Simon at Cape Town Eviction Attorneys on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Gauteng Government in Court for Blanket Eviction Order Over Land Invasions

Three months ago, it reached boiling point in Lenasia, south of Johannesburg, when police and residents clashed when officers tried to evict people.

The Gauteng Human Settlements Department is in the High Court in Johannesburg on Tuesday (05 Nov), expecting to get clarity on how it can deal with the escalation of land invasions in the province.

Three months ago, it reached boiling point in Lenasia, south of Johannesburg, when police and residents clashed as officers tried to evict people.

Structures have mushroomed all over the province on government and privately-owned land, while metro police try to evict people, only for them to return days later.

In some extreme instances, the department had to turn to the courts to obtain an interdict.

The department is seeking a blanket eviction order from the High Court to help police remove land invaders off government property immediately without seeking an individual eviction order every time, delaying the process.

MEC Lebogang Maile said the matter needed to be resolved urgently.

Originally featured on ewn.co.za

*Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm in Cape Town, now operating in Gauteng and Durban, of specialised eviction attorneys, helping both landlords and tenants with the eviction process. Contact one of our eviction lawyers on +27 (0) 86 099 5146 or info@sdlaw.co.za if you have been evicted unlawfully.

Further reading:

Mob Eviction in Alexandra

Court Declares Shack Eviction Unlawful

Durban Evictions

Red Ants Back on the Eviction March

Red Ants Continue to Disregard Due Process of Law

Police and Developers Blame Each Other

Abandoned personal property – what should a landlord do?

What are a landlord’s responsibilities and rights when a tenant leaves personal property behind?

Your tenant has moved out. The lease may have expired and the tenancy ended amicably, or you may have served a notice of termination or even had to undertake an eviction procedure. Whatever the reason for your tenant’s departure, you find abandoned personal property left behind after they’re gone. What do you do?

The temptation may be (depending on the nature and the quality of the items) either to put it all on the street for the waste pickers or appropriate it for your own use. Don’t do that…at least not until you have ascertained the status of the belongings and followed certain procedures. You could put yourself at risk for an accusation of theft (at worst) or a demand for compensation (at best).

Although you didn’t ask your tenants to leave things behind, it is still your problem, like it or not. Follow these steps to avoid any unpleasant consequences.

What constitutes tenant property?

Tenant property is defined as any personal possessions, owned by your tenants or their guests, that they have moved into or onto the property. The property includes any outbuildings, such as a garage, and even the garden area. The tenant should restore the property to its original condition at the conclusion of the lease, and the lease agreement should specifically require this. This includes removing personal property. However, tenants do sometimes leave unwanted items behind, and unfortunately your final joint inspection won’t reveal these, as the walk-through is usually done before the tenant moves out, to identify any repairs that may need to come off the security deposit.

A word about fixtures

There is an exception to the definition above. If a tenant has attached something to a wall or ceiling, it is called a “fixture.” Examples of fixtures are built-in bookshelves, curtain rails or lighting units. Unless there is a clause in the lease making provision for fixtures to be removed, or a separate contract to that effect, once a fixture is installed it becomes part of the premises and therefore belongs to the landlord. If the tenant wishes to remove it, they must not only restore the wall or ceiling to its original condition, they must secure the landlord’s consent to do so (because the fixture is now the property of the landlord, not the tenant).

Are you sure the tenant has gone for good?

In most cases, this will be obvious. Your tenant has given notice to leave because they have bought a house or are relocating to another city, etc. There is no ambiguity. But what happens if the situation is not as clear-cut or as congenial? Perhaps you have served a notice of termination on the tenant, for example for non-payment of rent. Or you have commenced eviction proceedings. Then the occupant disappears. You assume they have absconded. Most of their belongings have gone, but not all. Has the tenant moved out and abandoned the remaining items, or are they coming back for them? You can’t be sure.

You have a duty to try to track down the tenant. With cell phones it is not that difficult. But if that fails, dig out the references provided when the lease was signed. Contact the employer or previous landlord (who may be a friend or family member). Use any contact details you hold for the occupant and exhaust all possibilities. You must be able to demonstrate that you tried in good faith to find the owner of the personal property.

Safely stored

You’ve done all you can. No one knows the whereabouts of your erstwhile tenant, or you have contacted them but they have not returned to claim their goods. You need to empty the unit to prepare for an incoming tenant. Now can you put the items on the street or adopt them as your own? No!

Although not a legal requirement in South Africa, you would be wise to store the belongings for a reasonable amount of time, safely and securely, and allow the tenant to reclaim the items within that reasonable time frame. While the personal property is in your hands you are liable for it and you don’t want to risk a damages claim. What looks like junk to you could be a treasured item to your tenant.

By law, if “movables” have been left behind and you have taken reasonable steps to be sure the tenant has permanently left the property and abandoned the movables, you are within your rights to sell or dispose of the items as you see fit. In South African law, unowned things are considered “fair game”. This means they can become owned by someone else. But it is the determination of “abandonment” that is problematic. So until you are absolutely certain the tenant is not coming back for their things, or sufficient time has passed to render it unlikely, keep the goods safe and sound.

Vehicles

It is extremely unlikely a tenant will leave an abandoned vehicle behind. But it happens occasionally. In this case, report it to the police. Giving them the licence number, and make and model of the car, along with the address where it is parked. The police will determine if it is abandoned and arrange to have it towed if the owner cannot be traced.

Prevention is better than cure

You can avoid all the hassle described in this article. Write an abandoned personal property clause into the lease. The rental agreement should already require the occupant to return the unit to the moving-in condition (validated by an joint inspection and inventory on entry). This is where you can  specify your preferences around fixtures – should they be removed before moving out or do you claim them as your property? You can also set out the conditions for abandoned personal property, for example:

• What constitutes abandoned property?

• How long will any abandoned property be stored?

• What will be the fee for storage and removal? Specify that the tenant will be billed for it.

• How will the payment for storage and removal be made? If this will be via the security deposit be clear that the deposit will not be returned until the unit is fully cleared.

• What will happen to unclaimed property (after the time determined above has elapsed)?

Make it easy for everyone

If a tenancy is about to come to an end, and presuming relations between landlord and tenant are hospitable, you could issue the occupants with a moving-out checklist. This is based on the terms of the lease and provides them with reminders of what they need to do, especially if they want to ensure the return of the deposit. Moving house is a stressful time and it’s easy to overlook things. A checklist could include:

• Cleaning requirements

• Repainting walls to the same colour as they were on entry

• Removal of all personal possessions

• Disposal of all rubbish, including recycling

• Leaving behind appliances and other fixtures of the property (don’t forget to include curtain rails and light bulbs – these are frequently removed as consumables!)

• Removing self-installed fixtures (depending on what your lease says about these)

• Notifying the landlord of any damage or issues in the property

• Settling all utility bills and taking final meter readings

Contact us today

SD Law is a Cape Town law firm of eviction attorneys, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, with deep expertise in rental property. We can help you draw up your lease agreement and manage the end of the rental period. We can ensure you don’t wind up in hot water by helping you screen tenants. But if any disputes do arise during or at the end of the tenancy, we can help you resolve them. Contact Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za to discuss your property-related matters today.

Getting rid of troublesome tenants

The pitfalls of constructive eviction

Landlords sometimes take the law into their own hands in an attempt to get rid of troublesome tenants. But tactics such as changing the locks, cutting off the water or electricity, intimidating a tenant or making the property uninhabitable are illegal, and amount to a constructive eviction. This strategy will only land you in hot water.

In terms of section 16 of the Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 (RHA), constructive eviction is illegal and the tenant can terminate the lease and seek damages. If found guilty, the landlord will be liable to a fine or imprisonment of up to two years, or to a fine and imprisonment.

Although the Amendment Act has not yet come into effect, it is important to understand its provisions and take this into account when signing a lease agreement. Download your free lease agreement template.

Breaking the law: an unfair practice

The Rental Housing Amendment Act seeks to remedy the shortcomings of the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 and to provide better protection for tenants. The latter has been criticised for “having no teeth”, especially regarding the inability of the Rental Housing Tribunal to enforce rulings

The Amendment Act is an attempt to improve the tenant/landlord relationship by extending the rights of tenants and the obligations of landlords. It is designed to be fair to both parties and to ensure that neither finds themselves taken advantage of or abused. The Amendment Act defines unfair behaviour as an “unfair practice”. Breaking the law is deemed an unfair practice.

So, if the possession of a property is disrupted by the landlord cutting off the electricity, for example, the tenant can apply for a spoliation order to have the electricity restored, and the landlord will be found in breach of the RHA.

Of course, landlords have the right to evict tenants, but you cannot take the law into your own hands and must follow the correct legal process and seek an eviction order from the courts. Learn more about navigating the dos and don’ts of eviction here and here.

What changes are on the cards?

In terms of the yet-to-be-gazetted Amendment Act:

• Lease agreements are required to be in writing and verbal agreements are no longer binding.

• The landlord must repay the tenant’s deposit and interest.

• The landlord may not cut services such as water or electricity.

• The landlord may not lock the tenant out of the premises.

• The dwelling must be habitable.

• The landlord is liable for maintaining the leased premises.

• The Rental Housing Tribunal, which was established to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants, will get more clout.

In conclusion

Once the Rental Housing Amendment is gazetted, landlords and tenants have six months before additional obligations take effect. So, make sure you understand the Amendment Act as well as your rights and responsibilities. As long as you comply with the legislation, there is no cause for concern.

And please, don’t cross the line and take matters into your own hands, you will get into trouble. It’s just not worth it.

 Contact us

 Are you experiencing issues with your tenant or landlord regarding changing of locks or cutting off services? Get in touch with us to find out more about the Rental Housing Amendment Act and how to stay on the right side of the law. Simon Dippenaar & Associates is a Cape Town law firm of specialist eviction lawyer, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, and we act for both landlords and tenants. Call us on 087 550 2740 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za for help with any property-related matters.