Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996

Act 31 of 1996

Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996
This is the latest version of this Act.
Citation
Act 31 of 1996
Date
Language
English
Publication
Download PDF (1.2 MB)
Collections
Related documents
Skip to document content
South Africa

Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996

Act 31 of 1996

  1. [Amended by Land Affairs General Amendment Act, 1998 (Act 61 of 1998) on 28 September 1998]
  2. [Amended by Rural Development and Land Reform General Amendment Act, 2011 (Act 4 of 2011) on 16 May 2011]
To provide for the temporary protection of certain rights to and interests in land which are not otherwise adequately protected by law; and to provide for matters connected therewith.BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:—

1. Definitions

(1)In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise—“beneficial occupation” means the occupation of land by a person, as if he or she is the owner, without force, openly and without the permission of the registered owner;“community” means any group or portion of a group of persons whose rights to land are derived from shared rules determining access to land held in common by such group;“informal right to land” means—(a)the use of, occupation of, or access to land in terms of—(i)any tribal, customary or indigenous law or practice of a tribe;(ii)the custom, usage or administrative practice in a particular area or community, where the land in question at any time vested in—(aa)the South African Development Trust established by section 4 of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936);(bb)the government of any area for which a legislative assembly was established in terms of the Self-Governing Territories Constitution Act, 1971 (Act No. 21 of 1971); or(cc)the governments of the former Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei;(b)the right or interest in land of a beneficiary under a trust arrangement in terms of which the trustee is a body or functionary established or appointed by or under an Act of Parliament or the holder of a public office;(c)beneficial occupation of land for a continuous period of not less than five years prior to 31 December 1997; or(d)the use or occupation by any person of an erf as if he or she is, in respect of that erf, the holder of a right mentioned in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act, 1991 (Act No. 112 of 1991), although he or she is not formally recorded in a register of land rights as the holder of the right in question, but does not include—(e)any right or interest of a tenant, labour tenant, sharecropper or employee if such right or interest is purely of a contractual nature; and(f)any right or interest based purely on temporary permission granted by the owner or lawful occupier of the land in question, on the basis that such permission may at any time be withdrawn by such owner or lawful occupier;“Minister” means the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform;[definition of "Minister" substituted by section 33 of Act 4 of 2011]“person” includes a community or a part thereof;“prescribed” means prescribed by or under this Act;“tribe” includes—(a)any community living and existing like a tribe; and(b)any part of a tribe living and existing as a separate entity.
(2)
(a)This Act shall not confer on the holder of a real right to land, any rights in addition to those which he or she holds in that land.
(b)The holder of an informal right in land shall be deemed to be an owner of land for the purposes of section 42 of the Minerals Act, 1991 (Act No. 50 of 1991).

2. Deprivation of informal rights to land

(1)Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), and the provisions of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No. 63 of 1975), or any other law which provides for the expropriation of land or rights in land, no person may be deprived of any informal right to land without his or her consent.
(2)Where land is held on a communal basis, a person may, subject to subsection (4), be deprived of such land or right in land in accordance with the custom and usage of that community.
(3)Where the deprivation of a right in land in terms of subsection (2) is caused by a disposal of the land or a right in land by the community, the community shall pay appropriate compensation to any person who is deprived of an informal right to land as a result of such disposal.
(4)For the purposes of this section the custom and usage of a community shall be deemed to include the principle that a decision to dispose of any such right may only be taken by a majority of the holders of such rights present or represented at a meeting convened for the purpose of considering such disposal and of which they have been given sufficient notice, and in which they have had a reasonable opportunity to participate.

3. Sales and other dispositions subject to informal rights

Subject to the provisions of section 2, any sale or other disposition of any land shall be subject to any existing informal rights to that land.

4. Regulations

The Minister may make regulations regarding all matters which are necessary or expedient to be prescribed in order to achieve the objects of this Act.

5. Application and duration of Act

(1)This Act binds all persons, including the State.
(2)The provisions of this Act shall lapse on 31 December 1997: Provided that the Minister may from time to time by notice in the Gazette extend the application of such provisions for a period of not more than 12 months at a time: Provided further that any such notice shall be laid upon the Table of Parliament, and if Parliament by resolution disapproves of such notice, such notice shall cease to be of force and effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such notice before it so ceased to be of force and effect.[subsection (2) substituted by section 7 of Act 61 of 1998]

6. Short title

This Act shall be called the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996.

History of this document

16 May 2011 this version
28 September 1998
Read this version
26 June 1996
Commenced
Read this version
21 June 1996
Assented to

Cited documents 3

Act
3
Expropriation Act, 1975
Minerals Act, 1991
Energy and Natural Resources · Environment, Climate and Wildlife
Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act, 1991

Documents citing this one 100

Judgment
51
Ndlovu v Ngcobo, Bekker and Another v Jika (1) (136/2002; 240/2001) [2002] ZASCA 87 (30 August 2002)
Reported
Whether PIE protects persons who held lawfully but now hold over from eviction and requires compliance with its procedures.
Property law – PIE Act – meaning of 'unlawful occupier' – whether includes persons who lawfully occupied but now hold over (ex‑tenants, ex‑mortgagors) – procedural requirements of s 4 – just and equitable discretion – relation to ESTA, Rental Housing Act and PISA – scope limited to human dwellings.
Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others (304/2006) [2007] ZASCA 95 (6 September 2007)
Reported
Applicant's eviction succeeded: unlawful continuous occupation in coastal conservation area; PIE inapplicable as cottages were not "homes".
Coastal conservation Decree – development prohibited without permit; continuous wrong doctrine defeats prescription for ongoing unlawful occupation; PIE inapplicable where structures are holiday cottages, not "homes"; customary or tacit local consent insufficient to establish lawful possession; State land presumption and municipal-exclusion interpretation.
Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd and Another [2018] ZACC 41 (25 October 2018)
Reported
Mining-right holders must ordinarily exhaust MPRDA section 54 remedies; mining rights do not automatically extinguish IPILRA informal land rights.
MPRDA s54 – internal dispute-resolution procedures – requirement to notify and involve Regional Manager before eviction; interaction between MPRDA and IPILRA; IPILRA s2 – deprivation of informal land rights requires consent or communal disposal in accordance with custom (majority decision at properly convened meeting); mining rights do not automatically extinguish informal occupation; amici curiae admissible but new factual evidence inadmissible under rule 31 when not incontrovertible.
Davidan v Polovin N O and Others (167 of 2020) [2021] ZASCA 109 (5 August 2021)
Reported
Whether an occupier’s oral right to occupy was lawfully terminated for eviction under PIE.
* PIE – unlawful occupier – definition – express or tacit consent to occupy – oral lease post written lease; * Proof and resolution of disputes of fact in motion proceedings – Plascon‑Evans and Wightman principles; * Termination of occupation – requirement for lawful termination of pre-existing right before eviction under PIE; * Evidence – role of acknowledgement of debt and corroboration versus bare denials; * Joinder – whether co-occupiers had direct and substantial interest (raised but unnecessary for majority decision).
Hendricks v Hendricks and Others (20519/2014) [2015] ZASCA 165 (25 November 2015)
Reported
Holder of a right of habitation is 'person in charge' and owner occupying without consent is an unlawful occupier under PIE.
* Property law – Right of habitation (habitatio) – limited real right enforceable against all and registrable against title deed. * PIE Act – definition of "unlawful occupier" and "person in charge" – holder of habitatio can be "person in charge" and owner occupying without consent can be an unlawful occupier. * Eviction – section 4(7) just and equitable enquiry – courts must consider rights and needs of elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women. * Remittal – matter remitted for s 4(7) enquiry and finalisation of eviction application.
Shezi v L L and Another (4209/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 373 (24 April 2023)
An occupier who fails to disclose facts showing eviction would be unjust can be evicted under PIE despite matrimonial claims.
* PIE – Eviction of unlawful occupiers – definition of unlawful occupier – occupier without owner’s express or tacit consent. * PIE s4 – Just and equitable enquiry – availability of alternative land and rights/needs of vulnerable household members. * Evidential onus – occupier must disclose circumstances relevant to resisting eviction; failure entitles owner to eviction. * Matrimonial proprietary dispute – sale challenges between spouses are to be determined in divorce proceedings and do not prevent eviction of unlawful occupier.
Grobler v Phillips and Others (446/2020) [2021] ZASCA 100 (14 July 2021)
An owner's right to evict may yield where long occupation, age and disability make eviction not just and equitable, despite PIE/ESTA issues.
* Property law – eviction – interaction of PIE and ESTA – onus on owner under PIE to prove occupier is unlawful which requires showing ESTA does not apply. * Procedural law – new points of law may be raised on appeal; ESTA rights cannot be waived orally (s 25(3)). * Rights in land – oral lifelong occupation not constituting habitatio enforceable against successors if not reduced to writing and registered. * Constitutional/Equity – even unlawful occupation may not be evicted where justice and equity weigh heavily against eviction (long occupation, age, disability).
MC Denneboom Service Station CC and Another v Phayane [2014] ZACC 29 (3 October 2014)
Reported
Court amended an ambiguous eviction order to protect residential occupiers under section 26(3) and PIE while allowing commercial eviction.
* Constitutional law – section 26(3) – eviction from home – court must consider all relevant circumstances and ensure PIE compliance before evicting residential unlawful occupiers. * PIE – application – protects natural persons occupying land as a dwelling; does not apply to juristic persons or occupants using premises solely for commercial purposes. * Civil procedure – ambiguous orders – appellate courts may amend defective or ambiguous orders to ensure compliance with constitutional protections. * Eviction law – distinction between commercial occupants/juristic persons and residential occupiers under PIE.
Randfontein Municipality v Grobler and Others (543/2008) [2009] ZASCA 129 (29 September 2009)
Reported
Whether long-standing occupation and municipal services establish tacit consent, making ESTA applicable and requiring oral evidence.
Eviction — PIE v ESTA — jurisdictional conflict; tacit and express consent to occupation; presumption of consent after continuous occupation; burden of proof on applicant; real and genuine dispute of fact requiring referral to oral evidence; municipal conduct and services as indicia of tacit consent.
Wormald and Others v Kambule (524/2004) [2005] ZASCA 84 (22 September 2005)
Reported
Court held a customary marriage does not ordinarily confer a real right to occupy third‑party mortgaged property; eviction under PIE was just and equitable.
* Property law / PIE – eviction – definition of ‘unlawful occupier’ – customary-law wife’s claim to occupy corporate-owned, mortgaged property. * Customary law – marriage – whether customary marriage confers real rights in specific immovable property (usus/habitatio) – interaction with mortgage bondholders. * Transkei Marriage Act 21 of 1978 – effect of non-registration on validity of customary marriages (conflicting Transkei authorities). * Declaratory relief – courts will not grant abstract or superfluous declaratory orders in eviction proceedings. * PIE discretion – balancing owner’s property rights and occupier’s needs; courts may grant a grace period to pursue maintenance claims.
Gazette
47
Act
2
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
National Forests Act, 1998
Environment, Climate and Wildlife

Subsidiary legislation

Title
Extension of the Application of the Provisions of the Act, 2025
Agriculture and Land · Human Rights · Public administration
Government Notice 3549 of 2025
▲ To the top