Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma v The Office of the Public Protector and Others

The case arose from the 2016 'State of Capture Report' issued by the former Public Protector, Ms Thuli Madonsela, which contained serious allegations of corruption involving then-President Jacob Zuma, senior government officials, and the Gupta family. The Public Protector’s remedial action required the President to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry, chaired by a judge selected by the Chief Justice, to investigate the allegations. Instead of complying, Mr Zuma launched a review application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court seeking to set aside the remedial action on constitutional and statutory grounds. The High Court dismissed the review and ordered Mr Zuma, in his personal capacity, to pay costs on a punitive attorney-and-client scale. Although the merits of the review were not pursued on appeal, Mr Zuma sought leave to appeal solely against the personal and punitive costs order. The High Court refused leave to appeal, and Mr Zuma applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal that refusal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, on the punitive scale as between attorney and client.

This case reinforces the principle that public office bearers, including the President, may be held personally liable for punitive costs where they litigate in breach of their constitutional obligations. It affirms appellate restraint in relation to costs orders, underscores the high standards of conduct expected of public officials in litigation, and strengthens judicial authority to protect constitutional accountability by ensuring that taxpayers are not burdened with the costs of self-interested or reckless litigation by public functionaries.