Property owners can kick people out if they are linked to serious criminal activity

The Western Cape High Court ruled that unlawful occupiers can be evicted without alternative accommodation where their occupation is linked to serious criminal activity.

This is according to law firm CDH’s Corné Lewis, Dipuo Titipana, and Aubrey Dube. The ruling was handed down in Transnet SOC v Those Persons Identified in Annexures F1 to F10 and Others on 21 July 2026.

The case involved 161 people unlawfully occupying several Transnet-owned properties in Woodstock and Salt River, Cape Town. Many of the occupiers were undocumented foreign nationals.

The properties are located near a major highway leading into Cape Town’s central business district and several business districts.

Transnet sought to evict these occupiers after the properties became linked to criminal activity in the surrounding area.

The City of Cape Town opposed the suggestion that it should provide emergency accommodation to the occupiers.

It presented evidence that the properties were being used as a base for crimes, including armed robberies, attacks on motorists and cyclists, drug dealing, and cable theft.

The evidence before the court included more than 100 attacks on cyclists over an eight-month period and 44 arrests for criminal activity over six months.

One of the incidents involved the death of an elderly cyclist who was attacked near the properties. The occupiers argued that the city had not meaningfully engaged with them.

The court rejected this argument and found that the city had engaged with the occupiers in good faith.

The court also found that the occupiers had not provided enough information about their individual circumstances, despite being given an opportunity to do so.

This included information about their homelessness, vulnerability, and other factors that could affect the eviction decision.

No automatic right to alternative accommodation

A key part of the judgment was the court’s finding that unlawful occupiers do not have an automatic right to alternative accommodation.

The court stated that the availability of suitable alternative accommodation is an important consideration in eviction cases, but “remains only a factor”.

This means that the absence of alternative accommodation does not automatically prevent a court from granting an eviction order.

The city had explained that it could not provide emergency accommodation because of limited resources and its existing housing obligations.

The court also said the city showed that its available emergency accommodation was already fully occupied.

The court therefore found that an eviction could still be just and equitable despite the lack of alternative accommodation.

The ruling also considered the legal status of undocumented foreign nationals.

According to CDH, their entitlement to alternative accommodation is subject to the regularisation of their legal status in South Africa.

The High Court also found that the occupiers had been living on the properties without a legal basis for more than a decade.

It said that allowing people to obtain preferential treatment by unlawfully occupying property would undermine the rule of law.

The court also considered Transnet’s constitutional property rights under Section 25 of the Constitution. It ultimately found that the circumstances justified the eviction of the occupiers.

The judgment, therefore, places more importance on the circumstances surrounding an unlawful occupation when courts consider whether an eviction is just and equitable.

This shows that criminal activity linked to the occupation can weigh heavily against the occupiers, the CDH team said.

What it means for property owners and occupiers

Lewis, Titipana, and Dube said the ruling provides an important clarification for property owners dealing with unlawful occupation.

It shows that the absence of alternative accommodation does not, by itself, mean that an eviction cannot be granted.

However, the judgment does not mean that property owners can automatically evict unlawful occupiers without alternative accommodation.

The CDH team stressed that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case. Courts must consider the full range of circumstances in each eviction matter.

These include the occupiers’ conduct, the nature of the occupation, their personal circumstances, the availability of resources, and whether meaningful engagement has taken place.

The court in this case did not establish a blanket rule allowing evictions whenever alternative accommodation is unavailable. Instead, it confirmed that alternative accommodation is one factor in the broader assessment.

The judgment also showed the importance of unlawful occupiers providing detailed information about their circumstances.

The occupiers had been given an opportunity to provide information about their homelessness, vulnerability and other personal circumstances.

However, the court found that the information provided was insufficient. This can affect an occupier’s ability to oppose an eviction.

CDH said legal representatives also have a role in helping clients provide relevant information to the court. As such, the judgment places responsibilities on both sides of an eviction dispute.

Property owners must follow the legal eviction process, while occupiers must provide the court with the information needed to assess their circumstances.

Despite its implications for property owners and unlawful occupiers, the judgment does not mean that every eviction without alternative accommodation will be granted.

The court made it clear that eviction applications require a fact-specific assessment, Lewis, Titipana and Dube said.

The rights of unlawful occupiers must be considered alongside the rights of property owners, the availability of housing resources and broader public interests.

In this case, the court found that the combination of factors present – such as the unlawful occupation and evidence of criminal activity – made the eviction just and equitable.

For property owners, the ruling confirms that a lack of alternative accommodation is not an absolute barrier to eviction.

For unlawful occupiers, it shows that occupying property unlawfully does not create an automatic right to housing and that their personal circumstances must be properly placed before the court.