Ellison v Breytenbach N.O and Others (Amendment to Leave to appeal) (84994/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 770 (14 October 2022)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 770 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Ellison v Breytenbach N.O and Others (Amendment to Leave to appeal) (84994/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 770 (14 October 2022) Ellison v Breytenbach N.O and Others (Amendment to Leave to appeal) (84994/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 770 (14 October 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_770.html sino date 14 October 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 84994/2019 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO REVISED 14 October 2022 In the matter between: - CLIVE MALCOLM ELLISON Applicant And MARHINUS JACOBUS DEWALD BREYTENBACH N.O .     First Respondent RICHRD HICKEN N.O. (In their capacity as Joint Trustees of CLIVE MALCOLM ELLISON)                                                  Second Respondent CITY OF TSHWANE Third Respondent This judgment is issued by the Judge whose name is reflected herein and is submitted electronically to the parties/their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines by the Judge or her Secretary. The date of this judgment is deemed to be 14 October 2022. AMENDED RULING ON COSTS IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL [1] On 3 October 2022, I granted the applicant leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division. [2] The order I made at the time read as follows: “ 10.1 Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division with costs.” [3] In granting the applicant leave to appeal, I should have awarded costs to read “costs in the appeal” instead of granting leave “with costs.” [4] The costs so awarded by me, was clearly a patent error in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) and same at the request of the applicant and by agreement with the respondent is accordingly corrected in terms of the rule. [5] Annexed, please find a copy of the amended Judgment. COLLIS C JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION APPEARANCES Counsel for Applicant                           : Adv. CB Ellis Instructed by                                          : Jacobson and Levy Inc. Attorneys Counsel for Respondents                     : Adv. L Hollander Instructed by                                          : Serfontein, Viljoen and Swart Attorneys Date of Hearing                                      : 07 September 2022 Date of Ruling                                        : 14 October 2022 sino noindex make_database footer start