Friendship and camaraderie, not self-interest, was the reason for payments made by Durban businessman Schabir Shaik to former deputy president Jacob Zuma, the Durban High Court heard on Tuesday in Shaik's corruption and fraud appeal bid.

"The payments to Zuma started during 1997 in an attempt by (Shaik) to assist Zuma to get out of the debt trap in which he found himself," defence advocate Francois van Zyl, SC, argued before Judge Hilary Squires.

"Later the assistance was primarily aimed at the education of Zuma's children. Not a single payment was linked to any specific act by Zuma in the interests of (Shaik) or any of his companies."

Van Zyl said a long-standing friendship developed between the two men during the anti-apartheid struggle years, which endured to this day.

"The court erred in rejecting the long-standing and deep-rooted friendship between (Shaik) and Mr Zuma as the reason why (Shaik) assisted Mr Zuma with his financial problems.

"The concept of a loan, often between friends, where the borrower is required to pay back when he is in a financial position to do so, is well-known in our law."

Shaik is seeking leave to appeal against his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud arising from what the judge described as a "generally corrupt relationship" with Zuma. He was sentenced to an effective 15 years in jail.

Van Zyl argued that Squires had erred in finding that Zuma was influenced by any of Shaik's payments to further the businessman's interests.

Shaik's Nkobi group of companies never succeeded in getting any contract or tender from Zuma's department when he was an MEC in the KwaZulu-Natal provincial government.

Nor was it successful in obtaining any work from government sources in any of the instances referred to in the evidence where Zuma was allegedly involved.

This proved that the payments were made in the continuation of a "innocent, non-corrupt relationship", Van Zyl argued.

The defence further contended it was not an offence to give a benefit for a person to use his political prestige, as opposed to his powers of office, to advance the business interests of the giver.

The State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaik intended Zuma to commit or omit any act in relation to his official powers or duties.

"It is submitted that it is not an offence ... if a person gives a benefit to another to use his political prestige, as opposed to the powers of his office, to advance the interests of the giver," the defence states in documents before the court.

Shaik was sentenced in June to 15 years in jail on each of two corruption charges and three years for fraud, but Squires ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Zuma was subsequently relieved of his duties, and is to go on trial on related charges in October.

With ackowledgements to Mariette le Roux and Sapa.