---

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

 

Reportable

Case No: 1335/2021

In the matter between:

 

STAY AT SOUTH POINT PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD                                APPELLANT

 

and

 

ABULELE MQULWANA                                       FIRST RESPONDENT

 

AKHONA NTOTHO                                               SECOND RESPONDENT

 

AMANDA MSABA                                                  THIRD RESPONDENT

 

ANDILE PHAKADE                                               FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

ANDISIWE SITYATA                                            FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

APHIWE MASEBENI                                             SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

ASEMAHLE DANGISA                                         SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

AVILE GIYAMA                                                      EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

AVUMILE MZANTSI                                              NINTH RESPONDENT

 

AVUYILE SOMAGAGU                                         TENTH RESPONDENT

 

AWODWA PICANE                                               ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

AYANDA BUHLEBEMVULO SIKO                    TWELFTH RESPONDENT

 

BONGA GWABENI                                                THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

BONGANI PUZA                                                    FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

BUKHO MANGALI                                                 FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

EYRAM ADALETE                                                SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

FULUFHELO LENNOSE KHOMOLA                SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

GLODIE KABUYA                                                 EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

IVIWE LOLIWE                                                       NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

 

KAMVELIHLE MDAYI                                           TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

 

KELETSO QHETSU                                             TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

KHANYISILE DUBULA                                        TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

KHOLIWE NGUMBE                                             TWENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

LELOKA MOTHIBE                                               TWENTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

LERATO NGQOBWA                                            TWENTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

LESIBA KHALO                                                     TWENTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

LIMPHO RANAMANE                                            TWENTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

LITHAKAZI MQUQU                                             TWENTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

LONWABO ALVIN                                                 TWENTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

LONWABO NOFEMELE                                      THIRTIETH RESPONDENT

 

LULAMILE DYANI                                                 THIRTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

LUNGELO MNGUNI                                              THIRTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

LUTHOLWETHU NTLOKO                                 THIRTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

LWANDO MKWANE                                             THIRTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

MANCOBA VUYISANANI                                    THIRTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

MBONGENI BOQWANA                                       THIRTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

MDUNA AKHONA                                                 THIRTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

MELINDA SOGIBA                                                THIRTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

MIHLALI SITYATA                                                THIRTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

MINENHLE SG NGWENYA                                 FORTIETH RESPONDENT

 

MOJAKI REETUMETSI                                        FORTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

MPHO-ENTLE MOKOENA                                  FORTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

MVELELI MADOTYENI                                      FORTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

NEO MONGALE                                                     FORTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

NHLANHLA MKHITHIKA                                     FORTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

NJABULO NHANZI                                               FORTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

NOLUVUYO NOCANDA                                       FORTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

NTANDO TSHANAVHA                                       FORTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

NTLAKANIPHO NIKA                                           FORTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

NTOBEKA SEKHUKHUNI                                   FIFTIETH RESPONDENT

 

NTOKOZO MASEKO                                            FIFTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

OKUHLE JAMES                                                   FIFTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

PAMELA NKOMANA                                            FIFTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

PHELOKAZI NTOLA                                             FIFTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

PHUMZA MHAGA                                               FIFTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

SANDISIWE CHWAYI                                           FIFTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

SANDISO MBANJWA                                           FIFTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

SIHLE YANI                                                            FIFTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

SIKHO SISONKE MBOTO                                   FIFTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

SIMAMKELE NCWADI                                         SIXTIETH RESPONDENT

 

SINDISWA SIYAKA                                               SIXTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

SINOXOLO MDAKA                                              SIXTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

SIPHAMANDLA QOLI                                           SIXTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

SIPHENATHI MZWALI                                          SIXTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

SIPHO NUSE                                                          SIXTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

SIPHO VONGWE                                                   SIXTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

SITHSABA MACEMBE                                         SIXTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

SIXOLILE MADWARA                                          SIXTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

SIZWE TYOKWANA                                             SIXTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

SOUKE MDIYANA                                                 SEVENTIETH RESPONDENT

 

WILLIAM MAKASHANE                                        SEVENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

XOLANI JAFTA                                                      SEVENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

YAMKELA MVULANKULU                                 SEVENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

YONELA DALASILE                                             SEVENTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

ZIMASA KATA                                                       SEVENTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

ZIPHINDILE NYOKANA                                       SEVENTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

ZIPHO MHLABA                                                   SEVENTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

ZIZIPHO DANO                                                      SEVENTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

BONGA NOBOKWANA                                        SEVENTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

GERALD THABO MASUKU                                EIGHTIETH RESPONDENT

 

ITUMELENG DWANGU                                        EIGHTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

KONELE MHLOTYANA                                          EIGHTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

LEHLOHONOLO THABISO MOLOMO                EIGHTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

LUNGA DINISO                                                        EIGHTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

MASENTLE PONI                                                    EIGHTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

MTHANDENI NKAZIMULO CELE                        EIGHTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

NOZIPHO PETUNIA KHUZWAYO                       EIGHTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

SIPHOSETHU THOBIGUNYA                              EIGHTY-EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

THANDOLWETHU MYATAZA                              EIGHTY-NINTH RESPONDENT

 

VIWE PRINCESS NJONGO                                   NINETIETH RESPONDENT

 

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN                             AMICUS CURIAE

 

Neutral citation:      Stay At South Point Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mqulwana and Others (UCT intervening as amicus curiae) (1335/2021) [2023] ZASCA 108 (3 July 2023)

Coram:          SALDULKER, ZONDI and MABINDLA-BOQWANA JJA and MALI and UNTERHALTER AJJA

Heard:           21 February 2023

Delivered:     This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website, and release to SAFLII. The date for hand down is deemed to be 3 July 2023 at 11h00.

Summary:    Eviction – applicability of the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) to student residence at a higher education institution – residence not considered a home – PIE not applicable.

 

ORDER

 

On appeal from: Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town (Baartman J, sitting as court of first instance):

1          The appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.

2          The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:

‘(a)      It is declared that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 did not apply to the unlawful occupation by the respondents of their student accommodation, and the applicant was entitled to secure their eviction.

(b)       Each party to pay its own costs.’

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

Mali AJA (Saldulker, Zondi and Mabindla-Boqwana JJA and Unterhalter AJA concurring):

 

[1]          This is an appeal against the order of the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town (the high court) discharging a rule nisi and dismissing the appellant’s application to evict the respondents, with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The respondents had been called upon to show cause why they should not be evicted from the student residence which they continued to occupy without the consent of the owner of the property. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the high court.

 

[2]          The appellant is the owner and the manager of a residence, known as New Market Junction (the residence). It is a residence for students enrolled at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). The respondents are all students who were studying at CPUT during the 2020 academic year. The University of Cape Town (UCT) was admitted as an amicus curiae in the appeal. 

 

[3]          The appellant leased the residence to CPUT for purposes of providing student accommodation. The respondents were allocated accommodation by CPUT in the residence until the end of November 2020. However, they remained in occupation of the residence and refused to vacate, after CPUT gave them notice to do so within 72 hours of their last examination of the 2020 academic year, in terms of its procedures. The seventy-ninth to ninetieth respondents were granted permission to remain in the residence for the 2021 academic year, but they were required to vacate the premises at the end of 2020 and stay in alternative premises, which the appellant had made available, so that maintenance and decontamination could be done. These respondents also refused to vacate the residence. Consequently, the appellant summoned private security guards to remove them forcibly on 12 January 2021. When the respondents resisted their forcible removal, the appellant approached the high court on 15 January 2021 for an order to evict the respondents from the residence. The appellant relied upon the rei vindicatio to do so.

 

[4]          The respondents contended that the appellant was non-suited on the basis that the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) applied to the proceedings brought by the appellant and to the extent that the appellant failed to bring the eviction proceedings in terms of PIE, the application was fatally defective.The appellant contended that the residence did not constitute the respondents’ home, and if evicted, they would not be rendered homeless, because they had homes to go to. For this reason, the appellant submitted that PIE did not find application. In the alternative, the appellant contended that should PIE be applicable, then the eviction order nevertheless ought to be granted in terms of s 5 of PIE.[1]

 

[5]          At the commencement of the hearing in this Court, we were informed that the respondents were no longer in occupation of the residence. That rendered the appeal moot. Both parties agreed, however, that this appeal ought to proceed because of the wider and far-reaching implications of the eviction of students from student accommodation. I am also persuaded that this Court should hear the appeal, because the rights and duties of students provided with accommodation by CPUT is an issue of recurring controversy.

 

[6]          PIE was promulgated to give effect to s 26(3) of the Constitution. Section 26(3) provides that ‘[n]o one may be evicted from their home . . . without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances’. (My emphasis.)

 

[7]          PIE’s Preamble, in relevant part, provides:

‘WHEREAS no one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property;

AND WHEREAS no one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable that the law should regulate the eviction of unlawful occupiers from land in a fair manner, while recognising the right of land owners to apply to a court for an eviction order in appropriate circumstances.’ (My emphasis.)

 

[8]          Section 2 of PIE provides as follows:

‘This Act applies in respect of all land throughout the Republic.’

Section 4(7) of PIE states:

‘If an unlawful occupier has occupied the land in question for more than six months at the time when the proceedings are initiated, a court may grant an order for eviction if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, after considering all the relevant circumstances, including, except where the land is sold in a sale of execution pursuant to a mortgage, whether land has been made available or can reasonably be made available by a municipality or other organ of state or another land owner for the relocation of the unlawful occupier, and including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women.’ (My emphasis.)

 

[9]          Although the substantive provisions of PIE reference the occupation of land, it is plain that PIE gives effect to the constitutional protections against the peril of homelessness. It follows that, if the occupation of land does not constitute the home of an occupier, PIE does not find application. Further support for this proposition is found in Lester v Ndlambe Municipality and Another.[2] There, this Court stated that s 26(3) needs to be read against the backdrop of s 26(1), that is, the right of access to adequate housing.[3] It has been found that where one cannot demonstrate that one would be without alternative accommodation, and thus be rendered homeless, the protection of s 26(3) does not find application.

 

[10]       What then is a home? This Court in Barnett[4] held that the sensible and ordinary meaning of home is a place with ‘regular occupation coupled with some degree of permanence’. At para 37 it further said:

 

‘I believe it can be accepted with confidence that PIE only applies to the eviction of persons from their homes. Though this is not expressly stated by the operative provisions of PIE, it is borne out, firstly, by the use of terminology such as “relocation” and “reside” (in sections 4(7) and 4(9)) and, secondly, by the wording of the preamble, which, in turn establishes a direct link with section 26(3) of the Constitution (see eg Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika 2003 (1) SA 113 (SCA) paragraph 3).’

 

[11]       The central issue in this appeal is whether, given what this Court has held a home to be for the purposes of s 26(3) of the Constitution and its implementation in PIE, the provision of student accommodation by CPUT to its students constitutes a home, so as to render PIE of application.

 

[12]       There are three important features of the accommodation afforded by CPUT to the respondents which are relevant. First, the students came from homes in order to study at the university. Unless otherwise demonstrated, student accommodation does not displace or replace the homes from which students come, and hence, logically, the respondents have homes other than the residence. There is then no basis to seek the protection of PIE. Eviction does not render the students homeless.

 

[13]       Second, the provision of student accommodation is for a finite period of time and it has a limited and defined purpose, that is, to accommodate students for the duration of the academic year and thereby assist them to study at the university. The arrangement is by its nature temporary and for a purpose that is transitory. Students who are assisted by CPUT with accommodation are well aware that this valuable benefit is of limited duration.

 

[14]       Some legislative background is relevant to the third feature of the accommodation afforded to the respondents by CPUT. The amicus advanced submissions which placed the provision of student accommodation within the context of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 (HEA). UCT, for example, provides student accommodation, both on and off campus, to 8 040 students of some 28 000 students who are registered at the university. The amicus submitted that student accommodation is primarily an incident of the right to access to higher education, and higher education institutions, such as UCT, regulate access to student accommodation in terms of its institutional rules.

 

[15]       In this regard, the amicus referred to the Policy on the Minimum Norms and Standards for Student Housing at Public Universities^[5] (the Policy). The Policy, in relevant part, states as follows:

 

‘The Policy is applicable to all public universities and privately owned accommodation accredited by public universities. These Norms and Standards should be incorporated into the criteria developed by each public university and stipulated in the university’s policy and rules. Private providers shall establish clear and comprehensive standard lease agreements after consultation with relevant University officials and student representatives. Universities should rate and differentiate off-campus student accommodation according to standards set by each University.’ (My emphasis.)

 

[16]       This legislative backdrop is relevant to the third feature of the accommodation afforded to the respondents. This is particularly so in the context of the current scarcity of student housing in the higher education sector in our country. Those who are fortunate enough to benefit from accommodation provided by CPUT know full well that each and every year new students come to the university who legitimately look to the university for the very assistance that the respondents enjoyed. Equity requires that those who have had the benefit of accommodation should yield to those who have not. And nothing about the position of the respondents suggests that this equitable principle should not continue to apply. It is also for this reason, as the amicus reminded us, that student accommodation forms part of the larger policy framework of higher education.

 

[17]       These features of the student accommodation made available to the respondents indicate that this accommodation is not a home. It is a residence, of limited duration, for a specific purpose, that is time-bound by the academic year, and that is, for important reasons, subject to rotation.

 

[18]       It follows that PIE did not apply to the respondents’ occupation of the property. The appellant was thus entitled to evict the respondents in reliance upon the rei vindicatio. The high court’s refusal to order the respondents’ eviction was therefore in error. Accordingly, the appeal must be upheld.

 

[19]       As the respondents have now vacated the property, we do not order their eviction. It suffices to declare that PIE did not apply to the unlawful occupation by the respondents of their student accommodation. The appellant was entitled to secure their eviction. As to costs, the appellants rightly did not seek a costs order against the respondents.

 

[20]       In the result, the following order is made:

1          The appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.

2          The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:

‘(a)      It is declared that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 did not apply to the unlawful occupation by the respondents of their student accommodation, and the applicant was entitled to secure their eviction.

(b)       Each party to pay its own costs.’

 

________________________

N P MALI

ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

 

Appearances

For the appellant:	D C Joubert SC
Instructed by:	Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Cape Town
	Claude Reid Attorneys, Bloemfontein
For the respondents:	R Nyman with N Mashava
Instructed by:	Herold Gie Attorneys, Cape Town
	McIntyre Van der Post, Bloemfontein
For the amicus curiae:	M O’Sullivan with T Sarkas
Instructed by:	Fairbridges Wertheim Becker, Cape Town Lovius Block Incorporated, Bloemfontein

---