lOMoARcPSD|11763056
EVI3701-svshaik summery unisa
Bachelors of Law (University of South Africa)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by GEOFREY GEOFFREY ()
, lOMoARcPSD|11763056
S SHAIK AND 10 OTHERS v THE STATE (Criminal appeal)
and
S SHAIK AND 4 OTHERS v THE STATE (Civil appeal)
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
[1] The Court has prepared written reasons for judgment in these
two cases. The judgments are unanimous. Before stating the
orders, which come at the end of each judgment, we shall give a brief
outline of the Court’s principal decisions. It must be noted that this
summary forms no part of the judgments and therefore does not add
to them or explain them. It merely summarises.
[2] In the criminal case Mr Schabir Shaik and various of his
companies (which we shall call the Nkobi group) were charged on
three counts. We shall focus on the case of Mr Shaik for purposes of
the summary.
[3] On count 1 he was charged with contravening the Corruption
Act by making payments to or on behalf of Mr Jacob Zuma with the
corrupt intention to influence Mr Zuma to perform his duties in ways
that would be to the advantage of Mr Shaik’s commercial interests.
[4] Mr Shaik’s counsel said the prosecution failed to prove what Mr
Zuma’s duties were or what they involved. We think the answer is in
the Constitution. At the times with which the case is concerned Mr
Downloaded by GEOFREY GEOFFREY ()
EVI3701-svshaik summery unisa
Bachelors of Law (University of South Africa)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by GEOFREY GEOFFREY ()
, lOMoARcPSD|11763056
S SHAIK AND 10 OTHERS v THE STATE (Criminal appeal)
and
S SHAIK AND 4 OTHERS v THE STATE (Civil appeal)
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
[1] The Court has prepared written reasons for judgment in these
two cases. The judgments are unanimous. Before stating the
orders, which come at the end of each judgment, we shall give a brief
outline of the Court’s principal decisions. It must be noted that this
summary forms no part of the judgments and therefore does not add
to them or explain them. It merely summarises.
[2] In the criminal case Mr Schabir Shaik and various of his
companies (which we shall call the Nkobi group) were charged on
three counts. We shall focus on the case of Mr Shaik for purposes of
the summary.
[3] On count 1 he was charged with contravening the Corruption
Act by making payments to or on behalf of Mr Jacob Zuma with the
corrupt intention to influence Mr Zuma to perform his duties in ways
that would be to the advantage of Mr Shaik’s commercial interests.
[4] Mr Shaik’s counsel said the prosecution failed to prove what Mr
Zuma’s duties were or what they involved. We think the answer is in
the Constitution. At the times with which the case is concerned Mr
Downloaded by GEOFREY GEOFFREY ()
