Cape Town - The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled that student accommodation does not constitute a “home” and, as such, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) does not apply.
The SCA ruling set aside a 2021 Western Cape High Court judgment in favour of 90 Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) students in a case which had been brought by the owner of a student residence, known as New Market Junction.
The students had been allocated accommodation by CPUT in the residence until the end of November 2020, but when CPUT gave them notice to vacate within 72 hours of their last exam of the 2020 academic year, they refused to budge.
The owner of the property approached the high court wanting the respondents to show cause why they should not have been evicted from the student residence which they were now occupying without the owner’s consent.
In 2021, Western Cape High Court judge Elizabeth Baartman ruled that a home refers to more than a convenient lodging, in that for a particular academic year it constituted the home of the respondents.
With that, she dismissed the application, forcing the property owner to appeal at the SCA.
At the SCA, the property owner argued that the residence did not constitute the respondents’ home. He argued that if evicted, they would not be rendered homeless, because they had homes to go to and as such PIE did not apply.
Although the respondents were no longer in occupation of the residence at the commencement of the hearing in the SCA, both parties agreed that the appeal should proceed.
They agreed because they both felt that the case had wider and far-reaching implications for the eviction of students from student accommodation.
On Monday, SCA Judge Nelisa Mali ruled that the high court’s refusal to order the respondents’ eviction was wrong, and upheld the property owner’s appeal.
Judge Mali said: “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.”
She said the provision of student accommodation was for a finite period and had a limited and defined purpose.
She said this purpose was to accommodate students for the duration of the academic year, and thereby assist them to study at the university.
“Those who are fortunate enough to benefit from accommodation provided by CPUT know full well that 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 this equitable principle should not continue to apply,” Judge Mali said.