Some (un)resolved issues in South Africa’s proposed Unlawful Entry on Premises Bill in light of the decision in <i>Van Der Westhuizen v S</i> (2022)

Abstract Some South African businesses have a common sight at their establishments that reads: ‘Management reserves the right of entry’. Although the Constitution guarantees that all persons in South Africa have the right to property and freedom of association, an owner or a person in lawful occupation may exclude whoever they wish from the property. It is argued that implied permission remains a problem under the Trespass Act and the Unlawful Entry on Premises Bill. To engage this, a couple of sub-claims are used. This contribution starts by contextualizing the case of Van Der Westhuizen v S, followed by an evaluation of implied permission under the Trespass Act and a discussion of specific provisions under the Unlawful Entry on Premises Bill. The conversation then revisits the extent to which the Van Der Westhuizen case has raised important issues that are of relevance to the Bill. A conclusion and recommendations follow.