The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dealt a significant blow to the City of Tshwane’s attempt to expropriate privately owned land occupied by hundreds of unlawful settlers, ruling that the municipality acted outside its legal powers and sought to sidestep a court-ordered eviction process.
The judgment, handed down on 29 May 2026 in City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Summer Season Trading 63 (Pty) Ltd, has been described by legal experts as an important affirmation of property rights, the rule of law and the binding nature of court orders.
The dispute arose after hundreds of people unlawfully occupied land owned by Summer Season Trading 63 (Pty) Ltd. Following years of litigation, the landowner successfully obtained an eviction order. The courts also directed the City of Tshwane to provide alternative accommodation to the occupiers before the eviction could be carried out.
However, instead of implementing the relocation and eviction process, the municipality sought to expropriate the property. The City argued that acquiring the land was necessary to facilitate access to housing for the occupiers.
The landowner challenged the move, arguing that the municipality lacked the legal authority to expropriate the property and was effectively attempting to avoid its obligations under the existing court order.
The SCA agreed with the landowner, finding that the City’s expropriation was unlawful and amounted to an impermissible effort to circumvent the eviction and relocation orders already granted by the courts.
According to legal commentary issued by Werksmans Attorneys, the ruling sends a strong message that expropriation powers cannot be used as a shortcut to resolve housing disputes or avoid compliance with judicial decisions.
Werksmans Director and Head of Land Reform, Bulelwa Mabasa, said the judgment reaffirms constitutional protections against arbitrary deprivation of property and confirms that expropriation powers must be exercised strictly within the framework of legislation and the Constitution.
“The court made it clear that municipalities cannot rely on broad or implied powers, or invoke social hardship alone, to interfere with private ownership rights,” the commentary noted.
The SCA also emphasised the importance of the rule of law, rejecting what it viewed as an attempt by the municipality to use administrative action to override a final court order.
For landowners, the judgment provides significant reassurance that properly obtained eviction orders cannot later be undermined through alternative state action.
The court further stressed that municipalities have a legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation where required by court orders and cannot shift that responsibility onto private property owners.
At the same time, the SCA acknowledged South Africa’s severe housing challenges and recognised that many occupiers had established homes, livelihoods and community networks on the land over an extended period.
However, the court drew a distinction between the constitutional obligation of the state to provide access to housing and the rights of private landowners.
The judgment reaffirmed that Section 26 of the Constitution does not grant unlawful occupiers an automatic right to remain indefinitely on privately owned land. While evictions must be carried out in a manner that is just and equitable, ownership rights are not extinguished by prolonged unlawful occupation.
The ruling also builds on principles established by the Constitutional Court in the landmark Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd judgment, which highlighted the need for strict compliance with legal safeguards when dealing with land rights and evictions.
Taken together, legal experts say the two judgments demonstrate that South African courts remain committed to protecting both property rights and socio-economic rights, provided that all parties comply with the applicable legal framework.
While some may argue that the ruling limits the flexibility of municipalities in responding to urgent housing crises, others contend that it simply reinforces the principle that government interventions must occur within the bounds of the law.
The Summer Season judgment ultimately confirms that constitutional rights, housing obligations and property ownership must be balanced through lawful processes, not administrative expediency.