Can I do as I please with deposits received from my tenant?

“I have a small block of flats that I lease out to tenants. I always insist on a deposit to cover tenants that skip out on the final lease payment or cause damage to the property. I always invest the deposits in a savings account and in general return the deposits to the tenants. Recently a tenant wishing to terminate his lease approached me and asked for his deposit back including all interest earned thereon. I have never had such a request. Do I have to return the full deposit and interest to him?”

The purpose of a deposit and what should be done with it at the expiration of a lease is regulated primarily by the Rental Housing Act (“Rental Act”). The Rental Act provides that a landlord may require a deposit at the beginning of the lease and the deposit must be  invested in an interst-bearing account with a financial institution, which interest rate may not be less than the rate applicable to a savings account with that financial institution. The Rental Act also provides that a tenant may request written proof in respect of interest accrued from the landlord, and on receipt of this request, a landlord must provide such proof to the tenant.

The landlord may apply the deposit and interest earned thereon for the reasonable costs of repairing damage caused to the property at the termination of the lease. The balance of the deposit, together with the interest amount must be refunded to the tenant by the landlord no later than 14 days from the restoration of the property to the landlord. Where no amounts are due and owed to the landlord the deposit and interest accrued thereon must be fully refunded to the tenant by the landlord within 7 days of the expiration of a lease agreement.

If the landlord does not inspect the property with the tenant, he is deemed to acknowledge that the property is in a good and proper state of repair, and the landlord will have no further claim against the tenant who must then be refunded, the full deposit plus interest by the landlord.

It may be noted that where the landlord is a registered estate agent in terms of the Estate Agency Affairs Act the deposit and the interest accrued thereon is dealt with in accordance with that Act. 

In your situation, it does not appear that you are an estate agent. Accordingly, depending on the outcome of your inspections and any reasonable damages to be rectified, the balance of the deposit and interest must be paid to your tenant to whom you will need to disclose proof of interest earned on the deposit.

April 11, 2016
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest