IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
{1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) O F INTER ST TO OTHER JUDGE : YES
(3)- D:NO
... .lt?.1.~1?:P..~.~
SIGN DAT .
In the matter between:
SEPANKI JOHANNES PHETO
And
LETSEPE MPHELA PHAHLANE
CINDY MAKWENA PHAHLANE
THE CITY OF THSWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Case number: 024491/2024
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Re pondent
Third Respondent
This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the Court onfine digital data base
of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties.
The date of the de/Ivery of the judgment is deemed to be 18 February 2026.
JUDGMENT
MakhobaJ
1
[I] On the 20 March 2024 the applicant brought an urgent application seeking
a final order of eviction against the second Respondent.
[2] The matter was postponed to 06 May 2024 to the opposed motion roll for
argument. Costs reserved
[3] On the 08 May 2024, the matter was heard by the court. The matter was
postponed , the court directed the municipality to file a report pertaining to
alternate housing . Costs were reserved.
[ 4] The eviction was granted in a judgement on ( case lines 0001-1) the first and
second respondents , to pay the costs thereof jointly and severa lly.
[5] The first respondent filled a confirmatory affidavit that supports the relief
sought by the applicant.
[6] Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the applicant is not entitled
to the reserved costs. On both occasions, the applicant caused the postponement.
[7] In regard to the costs for 26 March 2024 it is argued that, the applicant
caused the postponem ent by his failure to follow the peremptory provisions of
the PIE Act. By launching the urgent application , the applicant was attempting to
circumvent the peremptory provisions of the PIE Act.
[8] It is further argued that, the urgent application was an abuse of court
processes. The urgent application was not the correct procedure. The applicant
was trying to circumvent the applicable law.
2
[9] In my view the applicant failed to show why he failed to follow the
provisions of section 4 (2) of the PIE Act and preferred the urgent application.
Consequently, the application is not entitled costs and costs should be costs in the
cause.
[10] In regard to the costs reserved on the 08 May 2024, it is my view that it was
imperative for the comt to order the Municipalify to file a report to alternative
accommodation. It is further my view that there should be no order as to costs in
respect of the reserved costs.
[ I 1] 1n the p_rernises I rnak~ tbe following order:
11.1 The cost previously reserved on the 26 March 2024 and on the 8th of May
2024 are costs in the cause.
11.2 In regard to the costs assoc1ated with this application/ hearing, I make no
order as to costs
D Makhoba
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
3
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant: Attorney - Elliot Attorneys
Counsel - Eugene Muller
For Respondent: Attorney - Prince Mudau and Associates In
Counsel - Khathutshelo Maphwanya
Date of hearing: 27 October 2025
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2026
4