The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) bid to evict former students from a university-owned parking lot.

The court found that housing protections under eviction law apply, even after earlier residence eviction orders.

Dispute follows residence eviction

The case stems from the Philip Kgosana student residence in Mowbray, which housed students, spouses and families. UCT obtained an eviction order in June 2025. The parties later agreed to extend the deadline to December 2025.

The occupants did not leave by the deadline. The Sheriff then executed the eviction and removed their belongings. UCT stored the items in a university-owned parking lot near the hockey fields.

Parking lot occupation begins

Some former residents moved into the parking lot. They erected a tent and began living there without permission from UCT.

UCT returned to court to enforce the eviction order.

It also relied on the legal principle of rei vindicatio, which allows a property owner to reclaim property from unlawful occupation. It forms part of common law ownership rights. UCT argued that ownership gave it the right to immediate possession of the land.

However, the court said ownership rights are not absolute and that constitutional and housing laws can limit them.

Court considers housing protections

The court examined whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) applied.

The PIE Act protects people from eviction without a court process and requires courts to consider all relevant circumstances before ordering eviction.

A key issue was whether the parking lot had become a home. If so, the PIE Act would apply fully. The court found that two respondents had made the space their home. They had no alternative accommodation and eviction would leave them homeless.

Court rejects UCT argument

UCT argued that the earlier eviction order removed any housing protection; the court rejected this argument. It ruled that the PIE Act cannot be bypassed through agreements or breaches of agreements, stating that the law applies regardless of prior undertakings.

Findings on other occupants

The court found that some respondents, including a woman and her minor children, were no longer at the site. Another individual had also left. The court ruled there was no basis for eviction or interdict against them. It found no evidence that they intended to return unlawfully.

Outcome of the case

The court dismissed the application. It made no order as to costs. The matter, University of Cape Town v SML and Others, was heard in the Western Cape High Court. Judgment was handed down on 29 April.

READ ALSO: UCT responds to food safety concerns in residence dining halls after student complaints