S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2021] ZAKZPHC 89; [2022] 1 All SA 533 (KZP); 2022 (1) SACR 575 (KZP) (26 October 2021)

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2021] ZAKZPHC 89; [2022] 1 All SA 533 (KZP); 2022 (1) SACR 575 (KZP) (26 October 2021)

The court held that the special plea raised by Mr Zuma under section 106(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be interpreted narrowly, referring only to the prosecutor's legal authority or standing to prosecute. Allegations of bias, lack of independence, or prosecutorial misconduct do not deprive a prosecutor of title to prosecute and must be pursued through separate substantive applications. The evidence established that Mr Downer SC was properly appointed, held the necessary authority, and no factual basis was shown for his removal. The court found no material disputes of fact requiring oral evidence and determined that the special plea could be adjudicated on affidavit. Previous...

Citation
[2021] ZAKZPHC 89
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma; Defendant: Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Case Number
CCD30/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Special Plea Under Section 106(1)(h) and 106(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Interlocutory Applications and Trial Readiness
Outcome
Special plea dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits.
Judges
Koen
Legal Topics
Special Plea, Title to Prosecute, Fair Trial Rights, Recusal of Prosecutor, Constitutional Interpretation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Special Plea Title to Prosecute Fair Trial Rights Recusal of Prosecutor Constitutional Interpretation

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

The State

Applicant

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Defendant

Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Special Plea Under Section 106(1)(h) and 106(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Interlocutory Applications and Trial Readiness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lead prosecutor, Mr Downer SC, lacks title to prosecute as contemplated in section 106(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged lack of independence, impartiality, or prosecutorial misconduct by Mr Downer SC deprives him of title to prosecute.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Zuma is entitled to an acquittal under section 106(4) if the special plea succeeds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the special plea raised by Mr Zuma under section 106(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be interpreted narrowly, referring only to the prosecutor's legal authority or standing to prosecute. Allegations of bias, lack of independence, or prosecutorial misconduct do not deprive a prosecutor of title to prosecute and must be pursued through separate substantive applications. The evidence established that Mr Downer SC was properly appointed, held the necessary authority, and no factual basis was shown for his removal. The court found no material disputes of fact requiring oral evidence and determined that the special plea could be adjudicated on affidavit. Previous...

Court Disposition

Special plea dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The matter is directed to proceed to trial in respect of the not guilty pleas of Mr Zuma and Thales.