http://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / Supreme Court of Appeal RSS ← Back
Pretoria|Africa|Africa|South Africa|High Court|Eliot|Jacob G Zuma|Mokotedi Mpshe|Operations|South Africa
|Africa|Africa||||Operations|
pretoria|africa-company|africa|south-africa|high-court-facility|eliot|jacob-g-zuma-person|mokotedi-mpshe|operations|south-africa-region
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Zuma v DA (771/2016); ANDPP V DA (1170/2016) [2017] ZASCA 146

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.
Close

Embed Video

Zuma v DA (771/2016); ANDPP V DA (1170/2016) [2017] ZASCA 146

13th October 2017

SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

T S Eliot spoke of ‘the recurrent end of the unending’.

The relevance of these words will soon become apparent. Before us there are two applications for leave to appeal, referred by this Court for oral argument in terms of s 17(2)(d) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. In referring the matter for oral argument, this Court directed the parties to be ready, if called upon to do so, to argue the merits of the appeal.

Advertisement

The two applications were consolidated as they arise out of the same facts. We heard the applications and directed that the merits be argued as well. The first application is by Mr Jacob G Zuma, presently the President of the Republic of South Africa. The other application is by the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (the ANDPP) and the Head of the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO).

The applications are directed against a judgment of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, in terms of which the decision on 1 April 2009 by the then ANDPP, Mr Mokotedi Mpshe, to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Zuma on serious criminal charges, including charges of racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud, was held to be irrational and was reviewed and set aside.

Advertisement

The order was at the instance of the Democratic Alliance (the DA), the official opposition in the National Parliament.

  • Zuma v DA (771/2016); ANDPP V DA (1170/2016) [2017] ZASCA 146
    Download
    0.70 MB
Sponsored by

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now
Register Close