Contact
Property

Is your Landlord responsible for your safety?

Jennifer was very excited to move into a larger rental apartment from the small flatlet she had been occupying. She gave notice, signed the lease and had already moved in when she heard from a neighbour that there had been numerous housebreakings at the property. This fact had not been disclosed by the landlord who had in fact alleged to Jennifer that there had never been an incident at the property. After hearing about the housebreakings Jennifer confronted her landlord who agreed that he would make certain security improvements to the property. A month later, after the landlord had failed to make any of the promised improvements, the property was broken into. To what extent is Jennifer’s landlord responsible for her safety and security at the rental property?

Our courts have held that a lessee is entitled to the full use and enjoyment of rental property and the landlord is under a duty to deliver and maintain that property in a condition reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is being let. This duty includes the obligation that lessees not be exposed to any unnecessary risk to life or property and that lessees should safely occupy the rental property. Accordingly, where a landlord has shown a wilful disregard for the safety of a tenant, exacerbated by a history of previous incidents, the landlord can be held negligent and accountable for damage suffered, if the landlord was aware of existing security issues and did not reveal such to the tenant or even deliberately concealed such facts from the new tenant.

That said, the tenant is also responsible to ensure that it inspected the property and is aware of what security measures are being provided by the landlord, before signing any lease. Where the existing security measures are not acceptable, additional measures should be agreed with the landlord and included in the lease agreement. Where tenants have inspected the existing security measures and accept such or fail to discuss any additional measures with the landlord, then the landlord will only be responsible for the maintenance of such measures and not for the implementation of additional measures, unless it can be shown that this represents unreasonable conduct.

In the present situation, particularly given the history of housebreakings at the property, Jennifer may have sufficient grounds to cancel the agreement of lease on the basis of the misrepresentation of the facts by the landlord if she can prove that the landlord was aware of the security issues and deliberately concealed such from her.

January 12, 2015
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

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

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

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

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

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