Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers

The Port Elizabeth Municipality sought an eviction order against approximately 68 unlawful occupiers, including children, who had erected 29 informal dwellings on privately owned land within the municipality. The occupiers had lived on the land for between two and eight years, many after previous evictions elsewhere. The Municipality acted following community pressure and petitions from neighbours and the landowners. The occupiers were willing to vacate if provided with reasonable notice and suitable alternative land with security of tenure, but rejected relocation to Walmer Township due to concerns about crime, overcrowding, and insecurity of tenure. The High Court granted an eviction order and authorised demolition. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the eviction, holding that eviction by an organ of state required consideration of the availability of suitable alternative land. The Municipality then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, arguing that it was not constitutionally obliged to provide alternative accommodation when evicting unlawful occupiers.

Leave to appeal was refused and the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal setting aside the eviction order was upheld. No eviction order was granted against the occupiers.

This case is a landmark in South African eviction and housing jurisprudence. It established a transformative, humane approach to evictions under PIE, affirming that courts must balance property rights with the dignity and housing needs of unlawful occupiers. It clarified that organs of state have heightened responsibilities when seeking eviction and that evictions cannot be granted without careful consideration of alternative accommodation. The case is central to understanding the constitutionalisation of property law and the role of courts in preventing arbitrary evictions.