PIE Act overhaul proposed; SCA opens RAF claims to undocumented foreign nationals

The Department of Human Settlements has published the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026 for public comment. The Bill substantially amends the PIE Act by broadening the prohibition on inciting or organising unlawful occupation — now carrying fines up to R2 million or imprisonment up to two years. It introduces mandatory joinder of the relevant provincial department of human settlements, municipality, or other interested organ of state in all eviction proceedings under sections 4 and 5. Where the municipality is the landowner, mediation becomes mandatory rather than discretionary. Critically, the Bill empowers courts to grant eviction orders without requiring alternative accommodation where the occupier is found to be unlawful. Key definitions including 'evict', 'land', 'alternative accommodation', and 'unlawful occupier' are redefined, and the stipulated period of unlawful occupation is removed as a distinct factor. Mandatory forfeiture of money or assets received in contravention of the prohibition on unlawful occupation is also introduced.

The Road Accident Fund appealed two High Court orders that had declared its 2022 management directive and amended RAF1 claim form unlawful. The directive and form required foreign claimants to prove lawful presence in South Africa before the Fund would process their claims, effectively excluding undocumented foreign nationals from compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries.

The court held: The SCA held that 'any person' in section 17(1) includes all persons regardless of immigration status. Neither the Minister nor the Fund had the power to exclude undocumented foreign nationals from the statutory compensation scheme. The 2022 directive and the amended RAF1 claim form (paragraphs 6.1 and 12.1) were declared unlawful on legality and constitutional grounds and set aside. The court expressly disapproved the contrary High Court decision in Chola v RAF, holding it incorrect and not to be followed. The Fund's second appeal seeking suspension of court orders and stays of execution was also dismissed — the Fund was bound by settlement agreements already concluded, which operate as res judicata. Costs were awarded against the Fund including costs of two counsel in both appeals.

Legal impact: This judgment authoritatively resolves a split in High Court authority on whether undocumented foreign nationals may claim under the RAF Act. It confirms that the Act's social security purpose demands broad coverage of all road users and that executive directives cannot narrow statutory entitlements without legislative authority. Chola v RAF is expressly disapproved. The Fund may no longer rely on immigration status to refuse or delay claims. Practitioners should note that even if the directive were valid, the court found it could not apply retrospectively to claims lodged before 21 June 2022.