Former president Jacob Zuma's attempt to privately prosecute News24 specialist legal journalist Karyn Maughan and senior State advocate Billy Downer has come to an end.

Zuma's application to appeal an adverse finding of his private prosecution was heard in the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg on Monday.

In July, Judges Gregory Kruger, Jacqui Henriques and Mokgere Masipa deemed Zuma's private prosecution against Maughan and Downer an abuse of power.

In delivering judgment on Monday, after just 10 minutes of deliberation, Kruger said: "We arrived that there are no merits in any of the arguments raised by Mr Zuma."

Zuma was ordered to pay the legal costs of the appeal.

Previously, the three judges agreed that Zuma's private prosecution of Maughan had all the elements of a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit, which is a legal strategy often employed by big corporations or individuals, who bring defamation actions for huge amounts against individuals who criticise them.

The arguments

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, for Maughan, submitted to the court that Zuma's lawyer, advocate Dali Mpofu, and his counsel "do not address the findings at all and make no attempt to explain what is wrong with the [previous private prosecution] judgment".

"When we talk about abuse [of court processes], you [judges] have dealt with this extensively. There is no basis and no attempt to engage with actual findings to be overturned on appeal."

He went on to admonish the appeal of the private prosecution judgment. 

"The reason why it is a scandalous appeal in relation to the findings is not just that they fail to engage with findings, but the facts [in the original judgment] are so blatant and have common cause."

He said it was pointless for the high court to ask the Supreme Court of Appeal to "examine the question of fact".

"There are no grounds to argue that there is some other compelling reason to appeal."

He said granting a leave to appeal could also counter the judges' findings in the private prosecution.

"Given your findings around the abuse, if you allow leave to appeal, you compound the abuse. That is demonstrated by today's proceedings. Very little is said about Ms Maughan and little is being said in heads of argument either.

"Then you ask why she is still a subject of these proceedings. It is a deliberately oppressive litigation. As a matter of law, it is vexatious."

For Downer, advocate Geoff Budlender SC said there were no reasonable prospects of success for Zuma to appeal.

He said Zuma clearly implemented a Stalingrad strategy in his private prosecution and other court matters.

"Mr Zuma has never distanced himself from it. He has repeatedly raised interlocutory cases in many instances. When those are rejected, he makes attempts to appeal challenges and then starts interlocutory challenges."

Zuma arguments

Advocate Dali Mpofu, for Zuma, argued that there were "glaring myths" in the enforcement judgment. One of those was the Stalingrad strategy, something he said was nothing more than media hype.

"No court has ever accepted it. This court rejected it twice."

He said the rejection of the Stalingrad strategy "should be sufficient because the test is simply whether other judges can find different".

He said the assertion that Zuma caused a 20-year delay in his criminal trial was untrue.

"The court accepted the Zuma delay theory, even though there is objective information to prove otherwise."

He said 20 years should be revised to two to three years, because there were a number of court actions that were out of Zuma's control.

Mpofu added that the indispensability of Downer to prosecute Zuma in his arms deal case was a compelling reason for the appeal of the enforcement order.