Jacob Zuma loses appeal in case of his “leaked” doctor’s note

Must read

Brian Kinyanjui
Brian Kinyanjui
Brian Kinyanjui is a content writer and a Digital expert covering an array of stories ranging from Politics and business to entertainment. He has nine years of experience in TV and digital media. Previously worked as a Digital producer/ Editor at Tuko.co.ke, Citizen TV and Viusasa and Corporate Communication strategist consultant at ISA. He holds a Bachelor of Communication and a Diploma in Broadcast from Daystar University. Do you have extraordinary political, business or entertainment stories to share with Brian? Email: bkinyanjui@capemedia.co.ke

In June, the court had set aside the private prosecution against former South African president Jacob Zuma.
Zuma had alleged that it had been initiated with an ulterior motive and constituted an abuse of process.

President Zuma alleged that his prosecution had been initiated with an ulterior motive
President Zuma alleged that his prosecution had been initiated with an ulterior motive

-Zuma’s appeal-

However, the Pietermaritzburg High Court has now rejected former President Jacob Zuma’s request for leave to appeal the June ruling.

Consequently, This ruling invalidated his private prosecution of State Advocate Billy Downer and Karyn Maughan.

Zuma had launched this private prosecution in September, asserting that the State unlawfully leaked a “confidential” doctor’s note.

Zuma: High Court rejected former President Jacob Zuma's request for leave to appeal on a previous court decision
High Court rejected former President Jacob Zuma’s request for leave to appeal on a previous court decision

Someone allegedly leaked the controversial doctor’s note to Maughan during his arms deal corruption trial.

However, On Monday, former President Jacob Zuma and his legal team returned to court in an attempt to secure permission to appeal the ruling.

-Zuma’s appeal squashed-

Unfortunately for Zuma, the court has dismissed his application, affirming its initial reasons and conclusions.

The court expressed doubt that another court would reach a different conclusion from the initial findings and ruling.

Furthermore, the court stated that it had already meticulously examined the grounds of appeal put forward.

The High Court expressed doubt that another court would reach a different conclusion from the initial findings and ruling.

Nevertheless, the court affirmed that it had thoroughly addressed them in its original judgment.

Furthermore, It emphasized that there were no new or innovative issues raised, and there was no likelihood of success for Zuma’s appeal.

Additionally, while acknowledging the importance of the case, the court determined that this alone was not a sufficient reason.

-Zuma dismissed-

In finality, the court threw out Zuma’sappeal in totality on granting leave to appeal.

In addition to the rejection of his appeal request, they have also ordered Zuma to bear the legal costs associated with this matter.

The court threw out Zuma’s appeal in totality by granting leave to appeal previously handed rulings.
The court threw out Zuma’s appeal in totality by granting leave to appeal previously handed rulings.

The court found it just to grant him the legal fees of the proceedings as Zuma’s grounds of appeal did not meet the threshold yet allowed to proceed.

The former president has seen his retirement rocked with litigation following his rocky stint as South African president.

- Advertisement -spot_img

More articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest article