SA’s legal framework – anchored by the Rental Housing Act – was crafted to shield vulnerable tenants from exploitation and arbitrary eviction. Yet, as property owners in Stellenbosch and beyond are discovering, the pendulum may have swung too far, exposing landlords to a new set of risks.

The Daily Maverick reports that the case of Kevin Brown has become a cautionary tale in Stellenbosch following several rulings in the Stellenbosch Regional Court and the Western Cape High Court.

Brown has reportedly exploited legal loopholes, moving from house to house, making only minimal rental payments and staying months and, in at least one case, several years without much consequence.

Pieter Wessels, one of four trustees of the PD Wessels Trust, which owns a Stellenbosch property, told DM of the harrowing experience which saw his family home commandeered by Brown, far beyond the parameters of the agreed short-term lease.

Brown initially responded to a Property24 listing for a six-week rental (19 July 2024 to 31 August 2024).

He was unable to pay the full rent (R50 000 a month) up front and was only able to move in on 20 July once he had made payment. Since he only occupied the property for 13 days in July, his rent for that month was prorated to R20 967.

Brown moved in with his four children after the rent was paid – albeit by a third party.

Brown later sought to extend the lease until November. Wessels agreed – but only if Brown paid R150 000 up front by August to cover September, October, and November. He didn’t pay, so the lease ended on 31 August.

Despite this, Brown continued to occupy the property without permission.

Wessels stated that Brown used the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) to delay eviction proceedings, a tactic Wessels claims Brown has employed with other landlords.

The court found Brown had been unlawfully occupying the property, and ordered that he be evicted with effect from 28 February 2025.

In the interim period between November and 28 February, the landlords were ordered to return the Wi-Fi router and other items that they had removed from the property. The items, which had been included as part of the rental lease, had been confiscated by Wessels in frustration after Brown defaulted on rent payments.

Brown was ordered to immediately pay R50 000 in rent once this was done.

According to SA law, landlords cannot simply change locks or forcibly remove tenants; any eviction must go through a formal process, with proper notice and, if necessary, tribunal or court intervention.

This process, while vital for protecting the truly vulnerable, can be weaponised by bad-faith actors, leaving landlords with mounting losses and little immediate recourse.

Linda Schaefer, the owner of another Stellenbosch property Brown occupied shortly before moving to Wessels’ property, described a four-year ordeal marked by similar tactics.

In response to DM queries, Brown attributes the conflict, besides the non-payment of rent, to Wessels’ removal of items listed in the advert – including furniture, Wi-Fi routers, and pool equipment – which he says breached a court order requiring their return before he paid the outstanding rent.

‘His lawyers’ fees are self-inflicted,’ Brown said, adding that he reported Wessels’ attorneys to the Legal Practice Council for ‘improper conduct’.

Full Daily Maverick report