Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Another (1028/2019) [2021] ZASCA 39; [2021] 3 All SA 149 (SCA); 2021 (5) SA 189 (SCA) (13 April 2021)

Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Another (1028/2019) [2021] ZASCA 39; [2021] 3 All SA 149 (SCA); 2021 (5) SA 189 (SCA) (13 April 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that neither section 3(1) nor section 3(3) of the State Attorney Act authorises the State to pay private legal costs for Mr Zuma in his personal capacity. The payments made by the State Attorney to private attorneys for Mr Zuma's criminal defence and related litigation were unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid, as Mr Zuma was cited in his personal capacity and the litigation did not advance any governmental interest. The review applications by the DA and EFF were brought within a reasonable time, given the secrecy surrounding the payments and the ongoing nature of the expenditure. It was just and equitable to order a full accounting and repayment of the...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 39
Parties
Appellant: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma; Respondent: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2021
Case Number
1028/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Ponnan, Dambuza, Makgoka, Schippers, Gorven
Legal Topics
State Attorney Act, Review of Administrative Action, Public Funds Liability, Just and Equitable Remedy, Delay in Review, Punitive Costs
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law State Attorney Act Review of Administrative Action Public Funds Liability Just and Equitable Remedy Delay in Review +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Appellant

Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Attorney Act authorises the State to pay private legal costs for Mr Zuma in his personal capacity.
  2. 2 Whether the decisions to fund Mr Zuma's private legal costs were lawful, constitutional, and valid.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the review applications by the DA and EFF should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that neither section 3(1) nor section 3(3) of the State Attorney Act authorises the State to pay private legal costs for Mr Zuma in his personal capacity. The payments made by the State Attorney to private attorneys for Mr Zuma's criminal defence and related litigation were unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid, as Mr Zuma was cited in his personal capacity and the litigation did not advance any governmental interest. The review applications by the DA and EFF were brought within a reasonable time, given the secrecy surrounding the payments and the ongoing nature of the expenditure. It was just and equitable to order a full accounting and repayment of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, on the attorney and client scale.
  • The decisions to pay Mr Zuma's private legal costs are declared invalid, unlawful, and set aside.