S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2025] ZAKZPHC 56 (3 June 2025)

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2025] ZAKZPHC 56 (3 June 2025)

The court held that it is not competent to order the State to stop the prosecution under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as this discretion lies exclusively with the prosecuting authority. The relief sought by Thales and Mr Zuma was therefore not available. The court further found that the deaths of Messrs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAKZPHC 56
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
3 June 2025
Case Number
CCD30/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Opposed Application for Order to Stop Prosecution and Acquittal Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications by Mr Zuma and Thales dismissed; matter adjourned for trial.
Judges
Chili
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Prosecution, Fair Trial Rights, Irreparable Prejudice, Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act, Section 172 Constitution
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Withdrawal of Prosecution Fair Trial Rights Irreparable Prejudice Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act Section 172 Constitution

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Defendant

Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Opposed Application for Order to Stop Prosecution and Acquittal Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it competent for the court to order the State to stop the prosecution under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act?
  2. 2 Does the death of key witnesses justify a declaratory order that the accused cannot receive a fair trial?
  3. 3 Has irreparable or insurmountable prejudice been demonstrated to warrant stopping the prosecution or acquittal?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not competent to order the State to stop the prosecution under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as this discretion lies exclusively with the prosecuting authority. The relief sought by Thales and Mr Zuma was therefore not available. The court further found that the deaths of Messrs Maynot and Thétard, while unfortunate, did not amount to irreparable or insurmountable prejudice sufficient to justify stopping the prosecution or acquitting the accused. The alleged prejudice was speculative, and the availability and value of other witnesses could only be properly assessed at trial. The right to a fair trial is best determined by the trial court, not...

Court Disposition

Applications by Mr Zuma and Thales dismissed; matter adjourned for trial.

Orders

  • The application by both Mr Zuma and Thales is dismissed.
  • The matter is adjourned to a holding date on 4 December 2025.