Presidency of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Zuma and Others (003372/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1104 (22 October 2025)

Case Note

The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa; The State Attorney; The Solicitor-General of the Republic of South Africa v Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma & Others
Case number 003372/2024, High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Judgment delivered 22 October 2025 (Millar J).

Reportability

This judgment is expressly marked as reportable because it clarifies the scope of a repayment order flowing from earlier constitutional-type litigation concerning the use of public funds for a former President’s private defence. It is significant for three inter-related reasons. First, it demonstrates the manner in which a single-judge court must give effect to the remedial structure crafted by a prior Full Court and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Secondly, the decision provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of earlier court orders, confirming that the beneficiary of an unlawful expenditure can be held personally liable even where public officials were the immediate decision-makers. The court therefore adds important precedent on accountability and the limits of the “constitutional delinquency” argument that seeks to shift liability solely to state functionaries.

Thirdly, the court grants structured, supervisory relief compelling the State Attorney to report periodically on collection efforts, thereby reinforcing a developing South African jurisprudence on structural interdicts and the practical enforcement of monetary judgments against powerful individuals. For these reasons the judgment will be of interest both to practitioners and to other courts.

Cases Cited

The court referred to, analysed or relied upon the following authorities. Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others and a related matter 2019 (1) All SA 681 (GP); Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Another 2021 (5) SA 189 (SCA); Finishing Touch 163 (Pty) Ltd v BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa Ltd and Others 2013 (2) SA 204 (SCA); Capitec Bank Holdings Limited and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others 2022 (1) SA 100 (SCA); Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Rattan NO 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA); Bellairs v Hodnett and Another 1978 (1) SA 1109 (A); Crookes Brothers Ltd v Regional Land Claims Commission, Mpumalanga and Others 2013 (2) SA 259 (SCA); Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution and Others v Ingonyama Trust and Others 2022 (1) SA 251 (KZP); Nyathi v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Gauteng 2008 (5) SA 94 (CC).

Legislation Cited

The court considered the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975; the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956; the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998; and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, particularly the principles of accountability, transparency and the rule of law embedded in sections 1(c) and 195.

Rules of Court Cited

Reference was made to rule 6(5)(d)(iii) of the Uniform Rules of Court governing the raising of points of law, and to the general execution provisions enabling the Registrar to issue writs of execution for monetary judgments.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The State, joined by the Democratic Alliance, sought enforcement of a 2018 Full Court order – upheld in 2021 by the Supreme Court of Appeal – obliging former President Jacob Zuma to repay all public monies spent on his private criminal-defence litigation. A fresh accounting had quantified the total at R 28 960 774.34. Mr Zuma resisted liability on numerous grounds, the principal one being that the original order allegedly required the State first to pursue recourse against “constitutionally delinquent” officials who authorised payment.

Millar J dismissed that contention. Interpreting the earlier orders through the triad of text, context and purpose, the court held that both prior courts unequivocally intended direct personal recoupment from Mr Zuma. All other defences were either res judicata or ought to have been raised earlier. Consequently judgment was entered against Mr Zuma for the quantified amount, together with mora interest and a structural interdict compelling the State Attorney to report quarterly on recovery steps.

The court also granted the DA’s counter-application for interest and conditional execution against Mr Zuma’s presidential pension, but refused a punitive costs order, awarding ordinary party-and-party costs (including the costs of two counsel) to the successful parties.

Key Issues

The judgment grappled with three interlocking questions. First, whether paragraph (d)(ii) of the 2018 Full Court order, properly construed, imposed personal liability on Mr Zuma or merely authorised recourse against errant state officials. Secondly, whether the DA possessed locus standi to pursue a counter-application for interest and supervisory relief, given that it had been a party to the earlier proceedings. Thirdly, the court considered the appropriateness of ancillary relief, namely mora interest, a sixty-day execution timeline and periodic reporting (a structural interdict) to secure compliance.

Held

The court held that the prior orders, read contextually, unmistakably contemplated personal repayment by Mr Zuma; that the DA had a direct and substantial interest and therefore standing; and that just-and-equitable relief required the grant of interest, execution directives and ongoing judicial supervision. Judgment was therefore entered against Mr Zuma for R 28 960 774.34 plus prescribed interest (calculated in two tranches), with costs awarded to both the State and the DA on the ordinary scale.

THE FACTS

Mr Zuma’s private legal fees in long-running criminal and related civil proceedings had, for many years, been paid out of state coffers pursuant to decisions of the State Attorney’s office. In December 2018 a Full Court declared those payments unlawful, set them aside and ordered the State Attorney to compute the total outlay and take all necessary steps to recover it from Mr Zuma. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal failed in April 2021, whereupon the three-month timeline for compliance commenced.

The State Attorney filed a report in July 2021 indicating expenditure of R 18 261 347.72 and served a demand on Mr Zuma in October 2021. Subsequent reconciliation uncovered a further R 10 699 426.62, bringing the aggregate to R 28 960 774.34. When payment was not forthcoming, the present enforcement proceedings were launched. The Democratic Alliance, a co-litigant in the earlier review, aligned itself with the State but additionally sought interest, structural relief and clarity on execution against Mr Zuma’s assets, including his presidential pension.

Mr Zuma raised multiple defences – estoppel, laches, reliance on officials’ representations, absence of fault, prematurity and alleged equality infringements – yet ultimately concentrated on the contention that the order obliged the State first to sue the “constitutional delinquents” within the Office of the State Attorney. The parties accepted the quantum of expenditure and did not dispute the State’s arithmetic.

THE ISSUES

The court was required to decide whether the Full Court’s repayment directive extended personally to Mr Zuma or whether, as he contended, the State was obliged to exhaust remedies against culpable officials before proceeding against him. This necessitated an interpretative exercise grounded in the wording, context and object of the earlier orders.

A subsidiary issue concerned the Democratic Alliance’s standing to pursue a counter-application in these enforcement proceedings and its entitlement to seek mora interest, execution directives and supervisory relief. Finally, the court had to determine the appropriate costs order in light of the State’s own delays and the DA’s additional relief.

ANALYSIS

Millar J began by reaffirming the canonical principle, articulated in Finishing Touch and Capitec Bank, that court orders are interpreted like any other document: the language employed must be read holistically, in context, and with due regard to the order’s purpose. The judge methodically examined the Full Court’s reasons – particularly paragraphs 81 and 82 – and the SCA’s endorsement in paragraph 45, both of which expressly referred to “Mr Zuma” when discussing repayment. These passages, the court reasoned, left no interpretative doubt.

The attempt to transpose liability onto errant officials ignored the remedial rationale of the earlier judgments, namely the need to vindicate the rule of law by reversing an “abuse of public resources” and ensuring that the direct beneficiary, Mr Zuma, restored the fiscus. While officials might face separate accountability measures, that reality could not suspend or dilute Mr Zuma’s correlative duty to refund the State. Consequently, every auxiliary defence advanced was either irrelevant, already determined by the higher courts, or inconsistent with the doctrine of finality.

Turning to interest and structural relief, the court drew on Bellairs and Crookes Brothers to explain that mora interest compensates the creditor for loss of use of money. Because the debt became liquid only upon demand, interest was awarded on two temporal tranches: from 22 October 2021 on R 18 261 347.72, and from 25 January 2024 on the full R 28 960 774.34. Guided by Ingonyama Trust and Nyathi, the court accepted that periodic reporting and conditional attachment of assets, including the presidential pension (which, not being governed by the Pension Funds Act, lacks statutory embargo), were necessary to ensure effective execution.

On costs, while the applicants sought a punitive order, the judge considered that their own delay in launching proceedings rendered an ordinary party-and-party award more equitable. Both the State and the DA were granted their costs, inclusive of two-counsel fees, but without the punitive uplift.

REMEDY

The court issued a composite order. First, Mr Zuma must pay R 28 960 774.34 to the State Attorney. Secondly, prescribed interest accrues on the first tranche from 22 October 2021 to 24 January 2024 and on the full amount from 25 January 2024 until payment. Thirdly, if the debt is not satisfied within sixty days, the Registrar may issue writs of execution against Mr Zuma’s movable, immovable or incorporeal property, including his presidential pension, subject to a court’s confirmation that such attachment is just and equitable.

Fourthly, the State Attorney must file an affidavit every three months detailing steps taken, steps planned and monies recovered; the DA may respond and, if necessary, seek further relief. Finally, ordinary party-and-party costs (including two counsel) were awarded to the applicants and the DA against Mr Zuma.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reinforces several important principles. First, the beneficiary of unlawful state expenditure can be held directly liable for restitution even where public officials acted improperly. Accountability operates in tandem, not in the alternative.

Secondly, when interpreting court orders, text, context and purpose form an integrated analytical triad; courts will not permit strained readings that defeat the remedial objectives previously identified, particularly where those objectives include vindicating the rule of law and correcting abuses of the public purse.

Thirdly, the decision consolidates the emerging use of structural interdicts – accompanied by periodic reporting and conditional execution mechanisms – as an effective tool to secure compliance with monetary judgments against politically powerful litigants, thereby advancing the constitutional values of openness, responsiveness and accountability.