S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018, D12763/2018) [2019] ZAKZDHC 19; [2019] 4 All SA 845 (KZD); 2020 (2) BCLR 153 (KZD) (11 October 2019)

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018, D12763/2018) [2019] ZAKZDHC 19; [2019] 4 All SA 845 (KZD); 2020 (2) BCLR 153 (KZD) (11 October 2019)

The court held that neither Mr Zuma nor Thales established definitive trial prejudice resulting from the delay in prosecution. The delays were largely systemic, and both parties contributed through litigation. The seriousness of the charges, including corruption and racketeering, outweighed any claimed prejudice. The NDPP was empowered by s 179(2) of the Constitution and s 22(1) of the NPA Act to re-institute prosecution, and the decision was rational and in accordance with prosecution policy. The withdrawal of charges against Thales was based on a false premise, and the re-institution restored the status quo ante. Allegations of political interference and prosecutorial misconduct did not...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZDHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma; Applicant: Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The National Prosecuting Authority; Respondent: The KwaZulu-Natal Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Case Number
CCD30/2018; D12763/2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Permanent Stay of Prosecution and Related Interlocutory Matters
Outcome
Applications for permanent stay of prosecution by Mr Zuma and Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mnguni, Steyn, Poyo Dlwati
Legal Topics
Permanent Stay of Prosecution, Unreasonable Delay, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Political Interference, Fair Trial Rights, Prosecution Policy
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Permanent Stay of Prosecution Unreasonable Delay Prosecutorial Misconduct Political Interference Fair Trial Rights +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Applicant

Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The National Prosecuting Authority

Respondent

The KwaZulu-Natal Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Permanent Stay of Prosecution and Related Interlocutory Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecution of Mr Zuma and Thales constitutes an unreasonable violation of their constitutional right to a fair trial.
  2. 2 Whether prosecutorial misconduct, political interference, and pre-trial irregularities justify a permanent stay of prosecution.
  3. 3 Whether the National Director of Public Prosecutions had the power to re-institute prosecution against Thales after withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that neither Mr Zuma nor Thales established definitive trial prejudice resulting from the delay in prosecution. The delays were largely systemic, and both parties contributed through litigation. The seriousness of the charges, including corruption and racketeering, outweighed any claimed prejudice. The NDPP was empowered by s 179(2) of the Constitution and s 22(1) of the NPA Act to re-institute prosecution, and the decision was rational and in accordance with prosecution policy. The withdrawal of charges against Thales was based on a false premise, and the re-institution restored the status quo ante. Allegations of political interference and prosecutorial misconduct did not...

Court Disposition

Applications for permanent stay of prosecution by Mr Zuma and Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The NPA’s application for condonation of late delivery of its answering affidavit is granted with no order as to costs.
  • The NPA’s application to strike out parts of Mr Zuma’s replying affidavit is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion with no order as to costs.