Mr Schonegevel could not afford to effect the required changes to the Park and with the pressure of a final written notice in 2015 to comply with the Court order of 2012, he had to cancel the lease agreements and give eviction notices to the residents. Some accepted it, but many did not. The current owner, upon the request of the Municipality, employed a social worker to ascertain the personal circumstances of the occupants and to establish whether some occupants would become homeless upon eviction. A significant amount of occupants would not cooperate. Numerous attempts were made to reach out to occupants, by the Municipality and the Department of Human Settlements, in an effort to address the potential housing crises. Later findings would prove that only a relatively small percentage of occupants could potentially need assistance. Taking a drive through the Park, one will see various luxury vehicles, boats and small businesses present in Paradise Park. It appears that a great deal of occupants are not being honest with regards to their ability to find alternative accommodation.

The Court also heard at the beginning of the eviction matter, that not all the structures in Paradise Park were permanently occupied. About 40 percent of the structures were purely there for recreation purposes and its residents were regarded as semi-permanent. In an act of defiance most of these semi-permanent structures were rented out to new occupants during the last two or three years, without them making any contribution to the Municipal services. A significant amount of the so-called permanently occupied structures also changed hands during the existence of the eviction court case, with residents selling it to new occupants or amongst themselves and then renting it out for their own financial gain. It therefore follows that the current composition of residents of Paradise Park involves a significantly large number of residents who have moved into the park long after the eviction matter had started, without the consent of the land owner and purely to benefit from the chaotic circumstances created by the residents themselves over many years. The Western Cape High Court specifically noted that it is inconceivable that the residents did not realise the risk of purchasing structures on plots in Paradise Park, the use of which were illegally permitted by the previous owner.

It’s also important to note that the Court further remarked that it was clear that Magna (Sable Cape) at various stages attempted to assist the occupants in an effort to come to a solution or some arrangement with them, but that such attempts were purposefully derailed by a group of influential occupants, who demonstrated a seriously irrational sense of entitlement to continue to occupy Paradise Park.

Mr Schonegevel passed away before he could testify in court. His daughter testified in July 2021, that due to the demands of the municipality and lack of funds, her father had to sell in 2017. She denied any verbal agreement of a 99-year lease. The occupants provided evidence by way of affidavits, as well as viva voce testimony. Magna (Sable Cape) filed extensive affidavits and reports with regards to the facts in this matter and also called upon an expert witness who testified about the negative ecological impact of Paradise Park, especially of the inadequate sewerage system, on the wetlands, salt lake and ecosystem. It should also be noted that a substantial portion of the current structures on Paradise Park were illegally erected directly on the wetland area.

After various delays in the matter, an extension for further submissions by way of affidavits was granted. The occupants went so far as to submit an application for the recusal of the judge, alleging bias in the matter. They also refused pro bono legal assistance, and wished to be represented by an attorney who failed to appear in court. This attorney stated he was not further mandated by the occupants and thus he withdrew as attorney.

A plethora of unfounded court applications, devoid of any merit and with no real prospect of success, were also brought during this eviction matter by the residents of Paradise Park, which not only escalated the litigation and duration of the matter, but also substantially increased the legal costs involved in this case. During this period the illegal occupants, instead of paying their levies and contributing to the municipal services and costs of maintaining the infrastructure at the Park, rather pooled their contributions to fund their collective litigation.