Allie v Ras and Another (Appeal) (A50/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 529 (14 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Allie v Ras and Another
Citation: Case no A50/2025 [2025] ZAWCHC
Date: November 14, 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable because it addresses significant issues surrounding eviction procedures under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act), especially in the context of historical dispossession in District Six, Cape Town. The ruling not only dismisses an eviction application against an elderly resident but also emphasizes the importance of considering the historical injustices and personal circumstances of individuals who were dispossessed due to apartheid laws. The court's decision reveals critical insights into the application of tenants' rights and the fair treatment of vulnerable groups within the housing market, affirming the relevance of the PIE Act in protecting such rights.

Additionally, the judgment underscores the responsibilities of state bodies to ensure the provision of housing solutions for those affected by eviction, thereby reaffirming the commitment of the South African legal framework to address socio-economic injustices. Furthermore, it sets a precedent in evaluating the justness and equity required in eviction proceedings within the historical context of South Africa.

Cases Cited

• Land Access Movement of South Africa and others v Chairperson NCOP and others 2016 (5) SA 635 (CC)
• Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd 2012 (3) SA 531 (CC)
• Grobler v Phillips and Others 2023 (1) SA 321 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)
• Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999
• Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 25.

Rules of Court Cited

• Unfair Practice Regulations Schedule enacted under the Rental Housing Act of 1999

HEADNOTE

Summary

The appellant, Noor-Banu Allie, appealed against an eviction order granted by the Cape Town Magistrates' Court, which ordered her eviction from her home in District Six. The eviction was initiated by the first respondent, Waleed Ras, and the second respondent, the City of Cape Town, purportedly for renovations. The High Court dismissed the eviction application, taking into account Ms. Allie's age, her historical connection to the area, and the inadequacies of the alternative accommodation provided by the City. The findings reignited discussions on the challenges faced by historically dispossessed communities in accessing justice and housing rights.

Key Issues

• Whether the eviction of Ms. Allie was lawful and justified given her status as a long-term resident and her age.
• The adequacy of the grounds alleged for eviction, including the need for renovations and claims of unlawful occupation.
• The implications of historical injustice and personal circumstances in determining emotionally and socially equitable relief from eviction.
• The obligations of the City regarding the provision of emergency housing or alternative accommodation.

Held

The court held that the eviction application was unjustifiable on various grounds. The first respondent was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the claims of unlawful occupation, and the eviction would cause Ms. Allie significant hardship. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the magistrate had not adequately considered Ms. Allie's personal circumstances, the historical context of District Six, or the potential consequences of her eviction. The decision of the lower court was set aside, and the eviction application was dismissed with costs.

THE FACTS

Noor-Banu Allie, currently 78 years old, has lived in District Six for most of her life. Her residence was marked by the historical context of displacement caused by apartheid policies, particularly the Group Areas Act, which forcibly removed thousands of residents from the area. Ms. Allie's home had been the subject of various lease agreements over the years, the latest one being terminated by the first respondent, citing the necessity for property renovations.

In June 2023, she received an eviction notice stating she was unlawfully occupying the property without a valid agreement, claiming it needed renovations and was unsafe. Ms. Allie contested this claim, pointing to her comprehensive tenancy history and disputes regarding maintenance of the property and the exorbitant rental raises imposed.

The eviction proceedings moved forward without opposition from the first respondent, further evidencing the legal deficiencies inherent in the eviction application. Despite Ms. Allie's attempts to access alternative accommodation through the City of Cape Town and social housing programs, she faced systemic barriers, revealing the broader societal issues surrounding housing access in South Africa.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining several legal questions:

• Whether Ms. Allie's eviction would be lawful under the provisions of the PIE Act, considering her longstanding residency and personal circumstances.
• The relevance of the first respondent's grounds for eviction, specifically the claims of renovations and condition of the property.
• The effect of systemic historical injustices on evaluating the justness of the eviction and considerations of alternative housing provisions for Ms. Allie.

ANALYSIS

The court's reasoning highlighted multiple critical factors in its decision. Firstly, it assessed the legitimacy of the first respondent’s claims regarding the necessity for renovations and the characterization of Ms. Allie's tenancy as unlawful. The court scrutinized the manner in which the eviction application was constructed and noted the deficiencies in asserting a legal basis for terminating Ms. Allie's tenancy, particularly considering the context of her historical claim to the residence.

The evaluation placed considerable weight on Ms. Allie's age, social and emotional ties to District Six, and the psychological implications of forced relocation at such a late stage in her life. The court found that the lower court had inadequately accounted for these personal circumstances, violating the principles of justice and equity mandated by the PIE Act.

Furthermore, the court discussed the obligation of the City to provide reasonable accommodation options. It emphasized that the responses afforded to Ms. Allie were insufficient and largely dismissive of her unique situation, thereby perpetuating the cycle of dispossession entrenched in the historical fabric of apartheid-era policies.

In considering these aspects, the court underscored the necessity for legal processes to reflect not only the letter of the law but also the underlying social justice imperative, particularly for vulnerable populations disenfranchised by historical landlords in South Africa.

REMEDY

The High Court dismissed the eviction application, allowing Ms. Allie to remain in her residence. Further, the ruling ordered that the costs associated with the appeal and the original eviction proceedings be borne by the first respondent. This outcome not only reinstated Ms. Allie's right to her home but also signaled a judicial acknowledgment of the ongoing impacts of colonial and apartheid injustices, requiring sensitive legal recourse for affected individuals.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment articulated several key legal principles:

• Eviction under the PIE Act must consider the personal circumstances of the occupant, their ties to the property, and the social and historical contexts surrounding their residency.
• Landlords must provide legitimate, substantial evidence supporting claims of eviction, specifically that conditions warranting termination of residence align with statutory requirements under the Rental Housing Act.
• The principles of justice and equity are paramount in cases involving vulnerable populations, necessitating comprehensive evaluations of alternative housing options and accommodations after eviction is considered.
• The legal framework must continue to evolve to ensure protections for individuals impacted by past injustices, reminding courts that the intention of social justice and equity must permeate judicial conclusions, particularly in matters of residential rights.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing struggles of conjoined historical and personal narratives in shaping property law applications within South Africa today.