Maughan v Zuma and Others (12770/22P;13062/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 59; [2023] 3 All SA 484 (KZP); 2023 (5) SA 467 (KZP); 2023 (2) SACR 435 (KZP) (7 June 2023)

Maughan v Zuma and Others (12770/22P;13062/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 59; [2023] 3 All SA 484 (KZP); 2023 (5) SA 467 (KZP); 2023 (2) SACR 435 (KZP) (7 June 2023)

The court found that the respondent, Mr Zuma, failed to produce a valid nolle prosequi certificate in respect of Ms Maughan at the time the summons was issued, rendering the private prosecution unlawful. Furthermore, Mr Zuma did not demonstrate a substantial and peculiar interest arising from any injury suffered as required by section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the alleged disclosures did not violate his rights or cause actionable harm. The court held that the private prosecutions were instituted for ulterior purposes, namely to intimidate, harass, and silence the applicants in their professional roles, and constituted an abuse of process and SLAPP suits. The summonses were...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 59
Parties
Applicant: Karyn Maughan; Applicant: William John Downer; Respondent: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2023
Case Number
12770/22P;13062/22P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application to Set Aside Private Prosecution Summons and Interdict Respondent
Outcome
Application granted. The summonses are set aside and the respondent is interdicted from reinstituting or pursuing private prosecutions on the same charges. Costs awarded to applicants on attorney and own-client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Kruger, Henriques, Masipa
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Slapp Suit, Freedom of Expression, Nolle Prosequi Certificate, Standing to Prosecute
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Private Prosecution Abuse of Process Slapp Suit Freedom of Expression Nolle Prosequi Certificate +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karyn Maughan

Applicant

William John Downer

Applicant

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application to Set Aside Private Prosecution Summons and Interdict Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, Mr Zuma, was entitled to institute private prosecutions against the applicants without a valid nolle prosequi certificate.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Zuma had standing under section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to institute private prosecutions against the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the private prosecutions constituted an abuse of process and SLAPP suits intended to intimidate and silence the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, Mr Zuma, failed to produce a valid nolle prosequi certificate in respect of Ms Maughan at the time the summons was issued, rendering the private prosecution unlawful. Furthermore, Mr Zuma did not demonstrate a substantial and peculiar interest arising from any injury suffered as required by section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the alleged disclosures did not violate his rights or cause actionable harm. The court held that the private prosecutions were instituted for ulterior purposes, namely to intimidate, harass, and silence the applicants in their professional roles, and constituted an abuse of process and SLAPP suits. The summonses were...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The summonses are set aside and the respondent is interdicted from reinstituting or pursuing private prosecutions on the same charges. Costs awarded to applicants on attorney and own-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The summons issued out of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg on 5 September 2022 under case number CC52/2022P for the purpose of instituting a private prosecution against the Applicant by the Respondent is set aside.
  • The Respondent is interdicted and restrained from reinstituting, proceeding with, or taking any further steps pursuant to the private prosecution referred to above.