‘No prospects of suc­cess on ap­peal’

The Citizen (KZN) - - NEWS - Ilse de Lange

A full bench of the High Court in Pre­to­ria yes­ter­day dis­missed for­mer pres­i­dent Ja­cob Zuma’s ap­pli­ca­tion for leave to ap­peal against a per­sonal puni­tive costs or­der in his abortive at­tempts to stop and over­turn for­mer pub­lic pro­tec­tor Thuli Madon­sela’s State of Cap­ture re­port and granted a fur­ther costs or­der against him.

The court dis­missed Zuma’s bid to in­ter­vene per­son­ally af­ter Pres­i­dent Cyril Ramaphosa with­drew the pres­i­dency’s bid to ap­peal the whole of the judg­ment and also dis­missed his ap­pli­ca­tion for leave to ap­peal against the costs or­der, find­ing that he had no prospects of suc­cess on ap­peal.

In yes­ter­day’s rul­ing, the judges said given that the court up­held the re­me­dial ac­tion pre­cisely be­cause of Zuma’s per­sonal con­flict of in­ter­est due to his per­sonal im­pli­ca­tion in state cap­ture and given that it was un­likely that such a grave con­flict of in­ter­est would re­cur, the is­sue to be ap­pealed and the need for ap­pel­late court guid­ance on how to el­e­vate such con­duct by a sit­ting pres­i­dent was not a press­ing is­sue de­mand­ing ap­pel­late at­ten­tion.

They said a court was jus­ti­fied in award­ing costs where the con­duct of a lit­i­gant in con­nec­tion with the lit­i­ga­tion was im­proper, un­rea­son­able or lack­ing in bona fides.

Zuma had not demon­strated that there were ex­cep­tional cir­cum­stances that would war­rant ap­pel­late in­ter­fer­ence with the costs or­der. And they were of the view that his pro­posed ap­peal against the per­sonal costs or­der had no rea­son­able prospects of suc­cess.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.