Six months - or 62 court days - later, the fraud and corruption trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik entered its final stages after the state lost its attempt to reopen its case.

All that is left is for state advocate Billy Downer and defence advocate Francois van Zyl to argue their respective cases, starting on April 25.

Then Durban High Court Judge Hilary Squires, who is sitting with two assessors, will have to consider his verdict.

From the mountains of evidence before him, he will have to decide whether or not Shaik had a corrupt relationship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma - Shaik paying Zuma R1.2-million in return for business influence and favours - and whether he attempted to solicit a bribe for Zuma from arms-deal-preferred-bidder Thomson CSF.

The judge will also have to consider whether Shaik is guilty of fraud (alternatively tax evasion) for writing off a R1.2-million loan from his books.

On Thursday morning the defence closed its case, ending any speculation of surprise witnesses and that Zuma might testify for his financial adviser.

Then the state applied to re-open its case in an attempt to authenticate a document which it said it had found on the computer of one of Shaik's Nkobi companies.

The letter, which is unsigned, is addressed to Renong Executive Chairman Tan Sri Hlami Saad, and is purportedly from Jacob Zuma, then KwaZulu-Natal minister of economics and tourism.

The letter praises Shaik highly and indirectly recommends him as a black economic empowerment partner in the then proposed Point redevelopment project.

The state contends that this was a draft of a letter sent later by Zuma to Saad, which resulted in a meeting between Saad and Zuma at Shaik's flat, where, according to evidence before the court, Zuma apparently repeatedly expressed that Shaik was a good partner for the project.

In his evidence, Shaik took the state by surprise by denying any knowledge of the letter.

The state wanted on Thursday to call a computer expert to prove that it had been found on the Nkobi computer, that Shaik had been the likely author and that he had thus misled the court in his evidence.

Downer argued that it was in the "interests of justice" to allow this evidence to be led.

But Squires - who has indicated several times recently his keenness for the trial to end - said: "That may be so. But it's enough to make even the most disciplined stoic weep.

"We had got to the end and now you want to introduce more evidence."

After a three-hour adjournment he then ruled against the state, saying he had to strike a balance between "the justice of the situation and the need for finality", and that this evidence would only add to the dispute over credibility.

The document is now inadmissible.

Leaving the court, Downer refused to be drawn on whether or not this was damaging to the state's case.

"We are still on track... we thought we had a good case before and we are back to that position."

Shaik was upbeat, expressing relief that "the burden and subtle innuendoes" were over.

"I am delighted at the judge's decision... the state was trying to change the rules."

He took a final swipe at the media, alleging inaccurate reporting and accusing editors of politicising the trial.

But then, in the next breath, he thanked the journalists present for "staying and being patient".

"I apologise for the fights. You have been a good group. God bless you," he said as he walked away from the court.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton and The Mercury.