Phahlane v Pheto and Others (02441/2024) [2026] ZAGPPHC 234 (31 March 2026)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Costs — Variation of order — Court correcting oversight in previous order regarding reserved costs — Original order mistakenly stating costs in the cause instead of no order as to costs — Court exercising power under rule 42(1)(d) of the Uniform Rules to rectify the error — Corrected order reflects intention of the court to make no order as to costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
Case number: 024491 / 2024
( l) REPORT ABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
(3) REVISED: NO
SIGNATURE DATE
In the matter between:
LETSEPE MPHELA PHAHLANE
And
SEPHANKI JOHANNES PHETO
CINDY MAKWENA PHAHLANE
THE CITY OF THSWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the Court online digital data base of
the Gauteng Division, Pretoria and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties. The
date of the delivery of the judgment is deemed to be .3.L_ March 2026.

JUDGMENT
Makhoba J
1. On 18 February 2026 this court granted the following order in this matter:
"[1 OJ In regard to the costs reserved on the 08 May 2024, it is my view that it was
imperative for the court to order the Municipality 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.
[11] In the premises I make the following order:
11.1. The cost previously reserved on the 26 March 2024 and on the 08th of May
2024 are costs in the cause.
11.2. In regard to the costs associated with this application/hearing, I make no
order as to costs."
2. It is clear from paragraph 10 of my order above that the court intended to order
that the reserved costs of the 26 March 2024 and 8th May 2024 should be ("no
order as to costs';.
3. Unfortunately, due to oversight on my part, I made the mistake by ordering as
follows ("the costs previously reserved on the 26 March 2024 and 08th May 2024
are costs in the cause';.
4. I should have ordered no order as to costs in respect of the 26 March 2024 and
08th May 2024 respectively.
5. Therefore , in terms of rule 42(1 )(d) of the Uniform Rules, I vary (correct) paragraph
11 .1 of the order as follows:
11.1. The costs previously reserved on the 26 March 2024 and the 08th of May
2024, I make no order as to costs.

APPEARANCES
For Applicant:
For the Respondent:
D Makhoba
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Attorney - Prince Mudau and Associates In
Counsel - Khathutshelo Maphwanya
Attorney - Elliot Attorneys
Counsel - Eugene Muller