SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
Reportable/Not Reportable
Case no: 24111/2024
In the matter between:
PURPLE BLOK PROJECTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
(Registration Number: 2022/658905/07)
and
MARLOW DA VIDS First
Respondent
(Identity Number: 7[...])
SUSAN MARCHELLE DA VIDS Second Respondent
(Identity Number: 7[...])
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTY
HOLDING TITLE UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND
RESPONDENTS Third Respondent
CITY OF CAPE TOWN Fourth Respondent
Neutral citation: Purple Blok Projects (Pty) Ltd; Marlow Davids; Susan
Marchelle Davids; All other occupants of the Property
holding title under the First and Second Respondents
Coram: MANGCU-LOCKWOOD J
Heard: 04 February 2026
Delivered: 26 March 2026
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________________________________________
1. The first, and second and third respondents (hereinafter referred as “the
respondents”), occupying the premises situated at Erf 3[...] more
commonly known as [...] S[...] G[...] G[...] Street, Ruyterwacht, Cape
Town, Western Cape (“the premises”), are ordered to vacate the premises
on or before 29 April 2026.
2. Should the respondents fail to vacat e the premises, on or before 29 April
2026, the sheriff of the above Honourable Court is authorised to evict the
first, second and third respondents together with their possession from the
premises, on 30 April 2026, or as soon as possible thereafter, and the
registrar of the Court is authorised to issue the Warrant of Ejectment as of
30 April 2026.
3. No order as to costs.
_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT: REASONS
________________________________________________________________
MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J
[1] These are reasons for the order granted in Third Division on 04 February
2026, for eviction of the first to third respondents (‘the respondent s’). T he
applicant brought an application in terms of the Prevention of the Illegal Eviction
from Land and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act ), for
eviction of the respondents from the immovable property situated at [...] S[...]
G[...] G[...] Street, Ruyterwacht, Cape Town, Western Cape. The first and second
respondents are a married couple, whilst third respondents include their two
children.
[2] The history of the matter is set out in the founding affidavit of the
applicant, which remains unopposed. On 04 April 2024, the previous owner of
the property informed the first and second respondents, who were the co -tenants
in terms of a previous lease agreement, that the property had been transferred to
the applicant and that rental, accounts and any related matters were to be directed
to the duly appointed agent of the applicant. In the period between 04 April 2024
and 19 June 2024, the applicant offered the respondents opportunity to enter into
a new written agreement of lease with the applicant, which they refused to accept
or discuss. The communication in that regard is in the record.
[3] On 19 June 2024, the applicant ’s legal representatives issued a formal
notice to the first and second respondents noting that: (a) they had failed to make
payment of rental despite of their continued occupation on the premises; (b) they
had refused the applica nt and/or its representatives access to the property for
inspection and maintenance purposes, despite the applicant’s request for such
access; and (c) they had failed to liaise with the applicant to regularize their
occupation on the premises.
[4] The notice c ancelled any and all previous agreements that may have
existed between the applicant and the first and second respondents with
immediate effect, and provided them with one calendar month ’s notice to vacate
the premises. The notice was served personally upon the first respondent by the
sheriff on 24 June 2024.
[5] On 19 August 2024, the applicant’s legal representative received a letter
from OSP Attorneys stating inter alia that they act ed for the respondents and
requesting that the applicant consider offering the property to the respondents for
sale. This was duly done, and on 28 August 2024, an offer was made to sell the
property to the first and second respondents for an amount of R850 000.00. The
respondents were requested to revert by no later than 04 September 2024 . No
response was ever received to that offer.
[6] At the same time, the first and second respondents were presented with an
invoice for rental which was to be settled by 01 September 2024. The invoice
was not settled.
[7] On 20 September 2024, the applicant’s legal representatives issued a
further notice to the respondents repeating the contents of the previous notice of
19 June 2024. The notice, cancelled all previous agreements with effect from 01
October 2024, and granted them notice to vacate by 01 November 2024. This
notice too, was served by the sheriff.
[8] On 14 Nove mber 2024 t he application in terms of s 4(1) of the PIE was
served by the sheriff personally upon the first respondent, and in terms thereof the
respondents were informed of the set down date of 20 February 2025. On 6
December 2024 the court issued an order in terms of s 4(2) of the PIE Act and it
was served on the respondents on 16 January 2025.
[9] On 20 February 2025 the respondents were in attendance at court, and a
court order was issued by agreement, providing for a timeline of the litigation
which was to be conducted on an opposed basis. The matter was postponed to 27
August 2025, and the respondents were ordered to file their answering affidavits
by 30 April 2025, which was to include certain specified information relating to
their personal circumstances. In addition, they were ordered to complete the
fourth respondent’s (‘the City’) personal circumstances questionnaire and submit
it to the applicant’s attorneys by 30 April 2025. The first and second respondents
failed to comply with the court order of 20 February 2025 in any way.
[10] The applicant’s legal representatives corresponded with the respondents
on at least four different occasions reminding them of the ir non-compliance with
the court order of 20 February 2025, on 8 May 2025, 22 May 2025, 29 May 2025
and 13 June 2025. The emails in that regard appear in the record. No response
was received from the respondents.
[11] As a result of the non -compliance, t he applicant’s legal representatives
brought a chamber book application to compel the respondents to deliver their
answering affidavit within five days of service of the court order. The court order
was granted on 6 August 2025 and was served upon the respondents by sheriff on
10 September 2025. Apart from ordering the respondents to deliver their
answering affidavit within five days of service of the court order , the chamber
book order provided as follows at paragraph 2:
‘Should the Respondents fail to file the above-mentioned affidavit/s
within the time periods as stipulated in paragraph 1 above, that the
Applicant shall be entitled to set the application down for hearing
on the unopposed motion court rol l in the third division of this
Honourable Court.’
[12] The respondents did not file an answering affidavit in compliance with the
chamber book court order, and as it was entitled to do in terms of paragraph 2
above, the applicant set the matter down for hearing on the unopposed motion
court roll in the Third Division. On 12 January 2026 another notice of set down
was served on the respondents by the sheriff. It is recorded in the sheriff’s return
of service that the respondents were not willing to receive the served documents.
The notice of set down was also served to the first respondent by email, with no
response.
[13] On 4 February 2026 the matter was called up in court and the first
respondent appeared in person and re quested a postponement so that he could
obtain legal representation. He could not provide an answer for why no
answering affidavit had been filed in response to the two court orders of 20
February 2025 and 6 August 2025 , or why there had been no communication in
that regard with the applicant or its legal representatives . Furthermore, as already
indicated, the respondents were previously legally represented , and those lawyers
could have communicated on their behalf, or drafted the answering papers on
their behalf . Furthermore, the respondents had known since at least 12 January
2026 about the set down of the matter, when they refused to accept service, and
yet had not appointed legal representatives. Not to mention all the time they had
from 20 February 2025 at th e first appearance of the matter, and all the
subsequent legal steps taken in the matter, which provided opportunity for them
to seek legal representation if they so wished. Not once did they contact the
applicant or its representatives setting out any dif ficulties they might have
experienced concerning legal representation.
[14] Apart from the court orders already granted, it is clear that the applicant
has gone to great effort to obtain co -operation from the respondents, before and
after the launching of these proceedings, to no avail. In all the correspondence
summarized earlier, there has never been any denial of their indebtedness or
failure to pay rental in consideration of their occupation of the property, nor
denial of their failure to enter into a lease agreement or any kind of arrangement
to regularize their occupation. In other words, for a period of some two years, the
respondents have never denied the basis for this application.
[15] In addition to this, they have failed or negle cted to complete the City’s
questionnaire setting out their present circumstances. The questionnaire was
attached to the s 4(2) notice which was served upon the respondents in December
2024. It was again mentioned in the court orders of 20 February 2025, where the
respondents were ordered to complete it and to fur nish it to the applicant’s
attorneys by 30 April 2025. Even if the respondents did not have legal
representation, they could have completed that form. T here is no explanation for
their failure to do so. Their conduct demonstrates an alarming disdain, not only
for their new landlord and its legal representatives, but also for the processes and
authority of this court. It is against the interests of the proper administration of
justice for various judicial officers to be burdened repeatedly with the same
matter, saying the same thing, while the respondents sit on their laurels for two
years, only to arrive at the last minute to seek postponement.
[16] Since the respondents have never indicated a basis for a defence to the
main claim, a postponement would only result in further delays, in circumstances
where the applicant will incur further financial prejudice, while the respondents
continue to occupy the premises without paying rent and refuse to grant access to
the owner of the property. A postponement will accordingly not be in the interests
of justice and only serve to prolong and delay the proceedings. The postponement
was accordingly refused.
[17] As regards the just and equitable considerations, according to the contents
of the founding affidavit which remain unopposed , the third and fourth
respondents are a male and an adult female who are children of the first and
second respondents. According to the expired lease between the previous owner
the first and second responde nts, their dates of birth are 19 March 2002 and 16
November 1995, and they are accordingly adults. As for the rest of the particulars,
they remain undisclosed because the respondents repeatedly failed to complete
the City’s questionnaire, as already discussed.
[18] In terms of the court order granted, t he respondents were accordingly
granted two months to vacate the property. There was no indication that they
could not find alternative accommodation , whether in the vicinity of the current
property or elsewhere. They have been afforded effectively close to 2 years’
notice to comply with the requests of the new owner, since the commencement of
the correspondence set out earlier. On the other hand, they have continually failed
to pay rent and refused to either enter into a lease agreement or to grant the owner
access to the premises, all of which is grossly unfair towards the applicant.
[19] As a result, the following order was granted:
1. The first, and second and third respondents (hereinafter referred as
“the respondents”), occupying the premises situated at Erf 3[...]
more commonly known as [...] S[...] G[...] G[...] Street,
Ruyterwacht, Cape Town, Western Cape (“the premises”), are
ordered to vacate the premises on or before 29 April 2026.
2. Should the respondents fail to vacate the premises, on or before 29
April 2026, the sheriff of the above Honourable Court is authorised
to evict the first, second and third respondents together with their
possession from the premises, on 30 April 2026, or as soon as
possible thereafter, and the registrar of the Court is authorised to
issue the Warrant of Ejectment as of 30 April 2026.
3. No order as to costs.
_________________________
N. MANGCU-LOCKWOOD
Judge of the High Court
Appearances:
For applicant:
Instructed by: W. Luitjies, Toefy Attorneys
For first, second and third respondents: M. Davids (in person)