Can I change my tenant’s locks?

“I’ve been leasing a small townhouse to a young tenant. Unfortunately, the tenant is terrible at paying his rent and offers excuse after excuse. I’m fed up with the situation and just want him out. Can I change the locks when he is at work?”

Leasing property can hold financial benefit. But of course there is always the issue of a bad tenant that can upset the applecart. Just as a landlord has certain obligations towards a tenant, so a tenant has a duty to pay his rent on time. This is governed by the terms and provisions of the lease agreement.

As tempting as it may sound to resort to self help, taking the law into your own hands is not the answer and will only end up in making the situation worse. Taking the law into your own hands, regardless of the tenant being in arrears, is unlawful. If you change the locks without the tenant’s consent, it would be an unlawful deprivation of the tenant’s possession which is prohibited in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (“PIE Act”) and your tenant can obtain an urgent court order against you with costs, even if the tenant is in arrears with his or her monthly rental, requiring you to reinstate the tenant in his use and enjoyment of the rental property. Your tenant could also possibly refer a complaint to the Rental Housing Tribunal. 

But what should a landlord do then? When a tenant fails to pay rent, he or she is in breach of the lease agreement. The landlord must notify the tenant of the breach and request the tenant to rectify the breach. If the tenant, despite the landlord’s demand, fails to rectify the breach, the landlord can cancel the lease agreement and start eviction proceedings in terms of the PIE Act if the tenant refuses to leave the property.  

What the above shows is that there are legal steps that can (and should) be taken where you have a bad apple tenant. What you should not do is take the law into your own hands. Contact a litigation specialist to assist you in dealing with your bad tenant, as the PIE Act has certain prescriptive provisions that have to be strictly adhered to. 

March 8, 2016
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest