Lawyers acting for a former President Zuma have yet again failed to overturn a court order that he pay his estranged wife R95 000 a month as interim maintenance ahead of their divorce.

His application for leave to appeal was dismissed with punitive costs yesterday, according to a TimesLIVE report.

The initial order was made in terms of rule 43 (interim maintenance) proceedings by KZN High Court (Pietermaritzburg) Acting Judge Barry Skinner on 11 March. This was after the judge scrutinised his bank accounts – subpoenaed by lawyers for the wife – which showed large cash deposits, indicating he had not been truthful about his financial affairs.

In spite of the fact that rule 43 applications cannot be appealed, the former President’s lawyers were back in court on 23 March in an application which came before Judge Jerome Mnguni.

In it he said he could not afford to pay that amount, and claimed the payments noted into his bank accounts were ‘contributions and donations from sympathetic members of the public or donor organisations who support me politically’ and should not have been deemed ‘income’.

He said he owed R13m in legal fees and VBS Bank was suing him for more than R7m because he had defaulted on his bond payments and stood to lose his home.

Mnguni declined to deal with the application.

He said it was not ‘urgent’ and appeared to be an attempt to appeal the rule 43 ruling, which was not permissible.

The matter was adjourned until June.

However, last Friday, the former President’s lawyers launched yet another bid to set aside Skinner’s ruling in the form of an ‘application for leave to appeal’ to a full Bench, arguing again that the judge had got it wrong, notes the TimesLIVE report.

His lawyers, in their written argument, said a crucial aspect of the case had not been properly considered by courts in SA: the determination of rule 43 applications where litigants are parties to a marriage regulated by the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.

Opposing the application, Advocate Sian Clarence, acting for the estranged wife, said thus far he had not paid her anything and this was yet another dilatory tactic to avoid his obligations.

In her written argument, she repeated that the Superior Courts Act barred appeals of rule 43 orders.

The Constitutional Court had given this a thumbs up, finding that the purpose of the rule was to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy ‘primarily for the benefit of women and children … the rationalisation for the non-appealability is to prevent delays and curtail costs ... to allow an appeal process would contradict its very objective’.

When the matter was called yesterday, the former President’s lawyers asked for an adjournment, saying the advocate tasked to argue the matter was not available.

Skinner refused to grant the adjournment, and when the matter proceeded the lawyers said they only had instructions to argue for a postponement, not the merits.

After hearing arguments from Clarence, Skinner dismissed the application with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Full TimesLIVE report