Synopsis:
Application in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules of this Court read with Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules to vary a costs order in a previous judgment (CCT 102/11 and CCT 103/11). The may vary an order or judgment in which there is ambiguity or a patent error or omission. The application challenged the costs awarded in both matters on the grounds that the exclusion of the applicant (the MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Province) from the costs award was a patent omission. In case CCT 102/11, the Court held that the costs orders were granted in error. But in case CCT 103/11, the Court held that there was no error as the applicant was unsuccessful in his application and the application was successfully opposed. The application succeeded in relation to case CCT 102/11 and failed in relation to case CCT 103/11. Judgment of the Court.
