What is now commonly referred to as the Schabir Shaik Saga drones inexorably on. The State has not quite completed the presentation of its evidence. When it does do so and closes its case, Shaik's lawyers are almost certain to ask the judge for what is called a discharge. They will say in effect that if the case is stopped where it was, no reasonable man would bring a verdict of guilt.

The judge (Hilary Squires) is, of course, the "reasonable man" of the moment. If he agrees, he will merely say to Shaik, "You are discharged, you may go", and that will be the end of that. But if the judge does not do that, then, as the lawyers say, "the accused will be put on his defence".

And then Schabir Shaik will be able to call his witnesses to give evidence. That Shaik himself will give evidence is highly probable. In fact his senior counsel, advocate Francois van Zyl, has more than once told the court through witnesses that that will happen.

If there is no discharge, and if - after what was clearly an indication by his counsel that Shaik will give evidence - he fails to do so, the court could draw certain inferences from that failure.

Whether the real star of the play, namely the prince called Jacob Zuma, will give evidence, is still unclear. There is no obligation upon him to do so, despite the fact that his name has been mentioned in the course of evidence in the trial several times.

The reality is no one knows which way the matter will eventually go; that is what the final judgment of Judge Squires will be.

Even that judge is not God, and whatever he decides, if it is against Shaik, an appeal is a certainty. Judge Squires is an experienced jurist who tells it as he sees it.

He makes his judgments on the basis of evidence placed before him and the opinion he forms of the matter "having regard to the law applicable". He is an excellent judge; yet he will be the first to admit (unlike the Cape Judge-President John Hlope) that even good judges can sometimes be over-ruled by an appeal court.

While most judgments by Judge Hilary Squires have stood the test of time, there was one that did not. And it involved me. Because Amichand Rajbansi had made statements about me which I considered defamatory, I sued him in the High Court, Durban. Advocate Mark Harcourt, now a top advocate in Durban, was my counsel.

Rajbansi, through his legal representatives, took the point that because the defamatory material had been circulated in the parliamentary complex, it was covered by the immunity which was available to MPs in respect of their utterances in Parliament.

To that plea, an exception was taken, meaning it was averred that such a plea was bad in law and held no water. It seemed to Mark Harcourt - and to me also - that there was no question the exception would succeed and that Rajbansi's special plea in that respect would fail.

In fact, so confident was Mark Harcourt that he advised me not to postpone the holiday I had planned. The matter came before Judge Squires, who gave judgment in favour of Rajbansi.

But unlike Judge John Hlope in a recent matter in the Cape, Judge Squires followed the age-old dictum among lawyers that, except where the facts and the law are absolutely clear-cut, there was always the possibility, not necessarily a probability, that another court might come to a different decision. And so he granted leave to appeal to the Appellate Court in Bloemfontein.

There the matter was heard by a full bench of five senior judges, presided over by Chief Justice Peter Corbett. I was so nervous that I did not go to Bloemfontein.

Malcolm Wallace SC and Mark Harcourt presented the argument on my behalf. And the five-judge Appeal Court overturned the initial judgment of Justice Hilary Squires. I was delighted. In the event, Rajbansi paid damages of R20 000, which I passed on to charity. The costs, of course, exceeded that amount by far.

By coincidence a few months later, I was at a legal cocktail function and was talking to Judge Douglas Shearer when from across the room, a distinguished-looking man came striding towards us.

We got talking, and as my case had been all finished and klaar, there was no reason not to refer to it. "I have read your judgment," I said to Chief Justice Corbett, "and I was interested to see you referred to cases which not even Malcolm Wallace had brought up in his argument."

"Yes," he replied, "we judges often have to do our own research."

There was another case in which the applicant, a lessee of business premises in Durban, insisted he had a 10-year lease, a lessee of business, not a monthly lease as the landlord contended. I was involved in the case on his behalf.

We lost before a single judge in Durban. On appeal before a two-judge bench in Pietermaritzburg, we lost again. The client was adamant we proceed further. Senior counsel David Friedman, who later became a distinguished judge, felt it was hopeless. But the client was adamant. His business and livelihood were at stake. If he closed shop, he would go insolvent and his creditors would also lose out.

So the matter went to the Appellate Court in Bloemfontein, where a five-judge bench heard his appeal. And that appeal was granted, on a three-two split decision of the judges. The tenant was saved and his tenacity proved justified.

Even though there were five judges against him, one in Durban, two in Maritzburg and two in Bloemfontein, and only the three in Bloemfontein were in his favour, he won his case.

Law and litigation sometimes bring strange results. Which is why my advice to all and sundry is not to jump to any conclusions or to form any opinions in the Schabir Shaik case. It is for Judge Hilary Squires to come to a decision after he has heard all the evidence and considered all the legal factors. That is why we have courts of law and judges.

With acknowledgements to Pat Poovalingam and Post.