CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others

Citation[2021] ZACC 28
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawCriminal ProcedureContempt of CourtAdministrative Law

Facts of the Case

Following a previous judgment in which the Constitutional Court found Mr Jacob Zuma guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment for failing to comply with an order to appear before the State Capture Commission, Mr Zuma applied for rescission of that order. He argued that the order was granted in his absence and erroneously, and that his constitutional rights were violated as he was detained without trial and denied fair trial rights under sections 12, 34, and 35 of the Constitution. Mr Zuma had deliberately refused to participate in the contempt proceedings despite being properly served. He sought rescission in terms of rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court and/or the common law of rescission.

Legal Issues

  • Whether direct access to the Constitutional Court should be granted for the rescission application
  • Whether the requirements for rescission under rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court were met
  • Whether the requirements for rescission under the common law were met
  • Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify reconsideration of the Court's order in the interests of justice
  • Whether the order was granted in Mr Zuma's absence within the meaning of rule 42(1)(a)
  • Whether the order was erroneously sought or granted
  • Whether the motion procedure for civil contempt complies with sections 12(1)(b) and 35(3) of the Constitution
  • The role of international law (ICCPR) in interpreting the Bill of Rights

Judicial Outcome

The application for rescission was dismissed by the majority. Direct access was granted. CASAC and Democracy in Action were admitted as amici curiae. Mr Zuma was ordered to pay the costs of the Commission and the Commission's Chairperson, including the costs of two counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Rescission under rule 42(1)(a) requires that an order be granted in a party's absence AND erroneously. 'Absence' refers to involuntary exclusion from proceedings, not deliberate non-participation. Where a party has proper notice and deliberately chooses not to participate, the order is not granted 'in their absence' within the meaning of rule 42(1)(a). 2. An order is not 'erroneously granted' merely because a party failed to present defences that could have been raised. The error must be something the court was unaware of that would have precluded granting the order. 3. Under the common law of rescission, an applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for default AND show bona fide prospects of success. Both requirements must be met. 4. This Court is functus officio after delivering final judgment. The doctrine of finality and legal certainty are fundamental to the rule of law and can only be departed from in exceptional circumstances. 5. Rescission cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or to reopen matters already decided on the merits. 6. International law instruments like the ICCPR must be 'considered' when interpreting the Bill of Rights (section 39(1)(b)), but this does not mean they must be 'preferred' or that they create directly enforceable domestic rights. Unincorporated treaties bind South Africa at the international level but do not create justiciable domestic rights unless incorporated into domestic law.

Obiter Dicta

The majority noted with concern that Mr Zuma's conduct throughout the proceedings demonstrated a persistent disrespect for the judiciary and the rule of law, representing a monumental waste of judicial resources. The Court warned against allowing litigants to adopt litigious strategies of deliberate non-participation only to later seek rescission. Khampepe J expressed concern about the second judgment's approach to international law, cautioning against elevating the ICCPR above domestic constitutional law or allowing its provisions to be invoked as grounds for rescission. The Court emphasized that international law principles like subsidiarity and margin of appreciation recognize that domestic courts are better situated to apply constitutional protections in their local context. The minority judgment observed that South African law on contempt of court proceedings remains unclear and that a coherent approach needs to be formulated. The minority suggested that the common law motion procedure for contempt may not comply with constitutional requirements for a 'trial' as envisaged in section 12(1)(b), though this issue was not definitively resolved. The minority also noted that even compliance with domestic law does not insulate South Africa from liability under international law if ICCPR violations are established.

Legal Significance

This judgment is significant for clarifying the narrow grounds upon which the Constitutional Court will rescind or reconsider its final orders. It reinforces the principles of finality and legal certainty as essential components of the rule of law, while acknowledging limited exceptions in exceptional circumstances. The judgment addresses the distinction between rescission and appeal, emphasizing that disappointed litigants cannot use rescission as a backdoor appeal mechanism. It clarifies that deliberate non-participation in proceedings does not constitute 'absence' for rescission purposes. The judgment extensively discusses the proper role of international law in South African constitutional interpretation, clarifying that unincorporated treaties like the ICCPR serve as interpretative aids but cannot be directly invoked or enforced in domestic courts. The minority judgment raises important questions about the constitutionality of the common law motion procedure for civil contempt of court, particularly regarding detention without trial and fair trial rights, issues that remain unresolved and may require future clarification.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 14 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cited By 40 Cases

  • Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service and Another[2022] ZACC 8
    Applies

    The Court applies the test for rescission from this case: the applicant must give a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for default and show a bona fide…

  • Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Robert Thwala and OthersCase number 160/2017B (High Court, Mpumalanga Division, Volksrust)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that if court orders are disobeyed without consequence, the future of the judiciary and the rule of law would be bleak, and courts…

  • Centaur Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Cloete Murray N O and Others(1334/2022) [2024] ZASCA 34 (28 March 2024)
    Cites

    Cited as authority for considering the progress of winding-up as a weighty consideration within the context of the exercise of a court's discretion whether to…

  • Danisile Sibanda v Sheriff of the High Court and OthersHB 22/22, HC 359/21
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that there must be an end to litigation and it would be intolerable if courts could reconsider final orders.

  • Deon Smith and Others v Sasfin Bank Ltd and Another(507/2024) [2025] ZASCA 198 (19 December 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the requirements for rescission, namely that the applicant must give a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for their default and show a bona fide…

  • Don Andrew Watt v George Fanyana Malobola and Family and OthersLCC83/2023 (Land Court, Randburg)
    Applies

    Court applies the two-fold requirements for rescission of a default judgment: applicant must furnish a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for its default…

  • Eamonn Courtney v Izak Johannes Boshoff NO & Others(483/2023) [2024] ZASCA 104 (21 June 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that litigants who deliberately elect not to participate in proceedings cannot raise their absence as a ground for rescission in…

  • Hanneré Cecile Jooste and Jan Louis Jordaan v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape and Others(637/2023) [2024] ZASCA 138 (11 October 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court order is binding and must be complied with, obeyed and respected, irrespective of whether it has been correctly or…

  • Kingdom of Lesotho v Frazer Solar GmbH and Others[2026] ZASCA 75 (22 May 2026)
    Cites

    The Constitutional Court case was cited for the proposition that even when requirements for rescission are met, the court has discretion which must be…

  • Magherdien Sadien NO and Others v Sediek Sadien and OthersLCC26/10 (Land Claims Court, Randburg, 1 November 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that finality serves the public interest and the rule of law and parties cannot seek to avoid finality and have issues reopened.

  • MEC for Department of Education, EC v Meleng Youngson Ngxabi2738/2021 [2025] ZAECGHC (6 May 2025)
    Applies

    The court applies the requirements from Zuma that an applicant under Rule 42(1)(a) must show that the order was granted in their absence and was erroneously…

  • MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Khumbulela Melane and Special Investigating Unit v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape & Khumbulela MelaneCase No: 2017/2015 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Local Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that once an applicant has met the requirements for rescission, a court is endowed with a discretion to rescind its own order, and the…

  • MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC(544/2021) [2022] ZASCA 184 (20 December 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that orders of the Constitutional Court are final and immune from appeal, with narrow grounds for rescission to avoid legal uncertainty…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Gauteng Department of Community Safety v Universal Knowledge Software (Pty) LimitedCase No: 2024-074421 (unreported judgment dated 5 November 2025)
    Considers

    The court considers this case in relation to the first respondent's submission that the summary judgment order was not by default, but does not decide the…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape Province and Another v Yonela Befile obo Sibabalwe BefileCase no.: 428/2020 (Eastern Cape Division, Bhisho)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of finality of judgments.

  • Mhlontlo Local Municipality & 2 others v Ngcangula and Another(1154/2022) [2024] ZASCA 5
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of peremption as a waiver of the constitutional right to appeal in a way that leaves no reasonable doubt about the losing party's…

  • Minister of Finance v Sakeliga NPC (previously known as Afribusiness NPC) and Others[2022] ZACC 17
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that it would be inappropriate for any other court to entertain an application in terms of rule 42 pertaining to an order made by the…

  • Minister of Police v Lubabalo GuntuCase No.: 962/2021 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Applies

    Court applies the distinction between physical absence and elected absence, holding that rule 42(1)(4) protects litigants whose presence was precluded, not…

  • Monde Austin Shude v The Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education and AnotherCase No. 299/2022 (Eastern Cape Division: Bisho)
    Applies

    Applied to explain the distinction between criminal and civil contempt, and the nature of civil contempt consisting of wilful and mala fide disobedience of…

  • Mpheleng Communal Property Association v Kgoshigadi Mathebe of Bantwane Traditional Community and OthersLCC03/2021B [2025] ZALCC (unreported judgment delivered 29 July 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that contempt of court requires proof that a court order was granted against the alleged contemnor, that the alleged contemnor had…

  • Mthetho Hlamandana and Bhekameva Royal Family v Premier, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and OthersCase No. 2227/2023 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle that those who abandon ethical standards in pursuit of a cause must prepare to meet the court's reproach and the award of…

  • Municipal Manager O.R. Tambo District Municipality and Another v Ndabeni[2022] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that court orders must be respected and cannot be flouted with impunity, and that compliance with court orders is a constitutional…

  • Muntu Welcome Khumalo v Len Smith Investment Holdings CC and AnotherLCC 175/2016 (Land Court of South Africa held at Randburg)
    Applies

    The test for contempt of court was restated and applied, including that an applicant must establish: (a) an order was granted against the alleged contemnor;…

  • National Commissioner of Correctional Services and Another v Democratic Alliance and Others (with South African Institute of Race Relations intervening as Amicus Curiae)(33/2022) [2022] ZASCA 159 (21 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited to describe the factual circumstances which led to Mr Zuma's sentence of 15 months' imprisonment by the Constitutional Court.

  • Ndolo Judas Baloyi v G4S Secure Solutions (SA) Pty Ltd and Mannie BodensteinCase No: J 1410/23 (Labour Court, Johannesburg)
    Cites

    This case is cited for restating the principles applicable in contempt proceedings, particularly the requirements that must be established by an applicant…

  • Pallematic Freight t/a Little Fune (Private) Limited and Welshman Ncube v Hon Magistrate Maxwell Ncube, Crossmil Enterprises (Private) Limited and Messenger of CourtJudgment No. SC 22/26, Civil Appeal No. SCB 69/23
    Cites

    Referenced to support the principle that the doctrine of peremption applies equally in the case of rescission as it does in appeals.

  • Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v The National Consumer Commission and Another(612/2023) [2024] ZASCA 163 (29 November 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the proper functioning of courts is premised on the absence of fraud and the court must protect the integrity of proceedings to…

  • Samuels v Salie-Hlophe(Case no 771/21) [2023] ZASCA 49 (13 April 2023)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the principle that courts rely solely on the trust and confidence of the people to carry out their constitutionally mandated function…

  • Sithembiso Bokleni v First Rand Bank Limited t/a WesBankCase No. 1798/2020, High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda)
    Applies

    The court applies the two-fold test reaffirmed by the Constitutional Court for rescission of default judgments, requiring reasonable explanation for default…

  • Snowy Owl Properties 284 (Pty) Ltd v Celliers and Another(1295/2021) [2023] ZASCA 37 (31 March 2023)
    Follows

    The court follows the principle that all members of South African society must respect and abide by law and court orders, and that courts rely on trust and…

  • Stewart Dhliwayo v Warman Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd and OthersHB 12/22 (HC 1716/19)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the doctrine of peremption applies equally in the case of rescission as in appeals.

  • S v Zuma and Thales South Africa (Pty) LtdCase no: CCD30/2018 (KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg)
    Related To

    The Constitutional Court judgment ordering Zuma's imprisonment for contempt is mentioned as background to the adjournments and unrest that delayed the trial,…

  • Teodorin Nguema Obiang v Daniel Welman Janse Van Rensburg & Others(714/2023) [2025] ZASCA 30 (31 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the test for rescission under rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules, including that the order sought to be rescinded must have been erroneously granted…

  • Thandekile Themba Mnyimba v Bongiwe Mashalaba and OthersCA112/2024 (unreported, High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division - Makhanda, 10 April 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to establish that rule 42(1)(a) gives courts a discretion (not a compulsion) to rescind orders erroneously granted, and that this discretion must be…

  • The Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and OthersCase no: 5676/2024 (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
    Considers

    Considered in relation to the status of unincorporated international treaties in domestic law and international law as an interpretive tool.

  • The Sheriff of The High Court: Giyani (Sydney Herbert Park, An Officer of the Court) v Renky Thulani Makhubele(1270/2023) [2025] ZASCA 104 (15 July 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to emphasize the duty to respect and abide by court orders and that court relies on trust and confidence to carry out its constitutionally-mandated…

  • The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Pygon Trading Close Corporation and Others(1175/2022) [2024] ZASCA 28 (22 March 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the grounds upon which rescission can be sought are narrow and deliberately carved out by the Legislature to avoid chaos and legal…

  • Thubakgale and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others[2021] ZACC 45
    Cites

    This Court confirmed the dual nature of contempt of court (punitive and coercive).

  • Trustees for the time being of the Burmilla Trust and Another v President of the RSA and Another(64/2021) [2022] ZASCA 22 (1 March 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of subsidiarity in international law, recognising that the main social function of international law is to supplement, not supplant,…

  • Umkhonto Wesizwe Political Party and Another v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others(0015/24EC) [2024] ZAEC 05 (26 April 2024)
    Cites

    The Constitutional Court declared Mr Zuma guilty of the crime of contempt of court and sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment for failure to comply with its…

Explore More Cases

More Constitutional Law cases

  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
  • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97