The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has agreed to hear the National Prosecuting Authority's (NPA's) application to appeal the summary acquittal of all the accused in its first State capture trial – a move that could revive one of the State's cases against the Gupta brothers.

"The application for leave to appeal is referred to oral argument in terms of S 17(2)(d) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013," the court stated in a series of orders to the parties in the case. 

"The parties must be prepared, if called upon to do so, to address the court on the merits."

The SCA's decision to hear the leave to appeal application comes after the Free State High Court in Bloemfontein dismissed the State's bid to challenge the Section 174 discharges and acquittals in the R24.9-million Nulane fraud and money-laundering trial.

Acting Judge Nompumelelo Gusha dismissed the NPA's application to reserve "questions of law" in relation to her decision to grant Section 174 discharges to all but one of the accused in the trial.

The eighth accused, former Free State agriculture department head Limakatso Moorosi, had closed her case and was acquitted.

The case was one of two in which the NPA had tried and failed to seek the extradition of Atul and Rajesh Gupta from the UAE.

The Dubai Appeal Court dismissed that application earlier this year.

It was the State's case that the Free State Department of Agriculture paid R24.9-million to Nulane Investment for a fraudulent feasibility study on the Free State's flagship Mohoma Mobung project, which Nulane then paid Deloitte R1.5-million to do.

Nulane allegedly altered the findings of Deloitte's draft report to push for a "strategic partnership" with another Gupta-linked entity, Paras Dairy in India.

That report paved the way for the R288-million Vrede Dairy project scandal, which saw millions intended for the empowerment of poor black farmers allegedly making its way into the Guptas' pockets.

The NPA alleged that the Gupta brothers were involved in laundering Nulane's ill-gotten gains from the feasibility study scam. 

In a detailed ruling, Gusha described why the State had failed to lead evidence that would require the accused to defend themselves. She has stood by that decision, finding that the "questions of law" raised by the NPA were, in fact, questions of fact that the State was not entitled to challenge on appeal.

The State did not accept that decision and petitioned the SCA to hear its appeal, resulting in the orders that should see the NPA challenging Gusha's ruling in 2024.