The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was on Monday granted leave to appeal a Johannesburg High Court ruling ordering the return of documents confiscated from an attorney of former deputy president Jacob Zuma.

Judge Ismail Hussain said the matter enjoyed substantial public interest and should receive the attention of a higher court.

He said that although he had given directives on how the NPA Act should be applied and executed, it would be better if the Supreme Court of Appeal, which had the "luxury of time and numbers", gave additional direction.

Hussain said he had based his September finding in the matter on the manner in which the search warrants for the home and offices of the attorney, Julekha Mahomed, were obtained and executed.

The documents were taken in a countrywide raid on Zuma's properties and those of his lawyers by the Scorpions in August.

Hussain subsequently ruled that two search warrants for the office and home of Mahomed were obtained and executed unlawfully, and that attorney-client privilege was violated by the Scorpions' conduct.

Hussain's ruling set aside the warrants, and ordered the Scorpions to return all documents, files and objects seized from her premises.

Photographs taken during the raid and a copy of Mahomed's computer hard-drive also had to be given back and the NPA had to pay the costs of the application.

In his judgment, Hussain said the NPA did not disclose all material facts when they applied to Judge President Bernard Ngoepe for the warrants on August 12.

In their application they referred to Mahomed as "Zuma's personal legal assistant", but failed to bring it to Ngoepe's attention that she was a practising attorney.

Hussain said that according to the affidavit there were two entities involved in the search - Julekha Mahomed and J. Mahomed attorneys. No link between the two was established.

The NPA conceded it had not alerted Ngoepe to the fact, but said it was an unintentional mistake.

Hussain said Ngoepe had been misled by the NPA.

Attorney-client privilege was violated during the raid, when the investigators went through Mahomed's documents, Hussain said.

He said privilege was a right and an important principle in the execution of law in the country.

In view of these facts, Hussain said, he did not have a choice but to set the warrants aside and declare the searches unlawful. Hussain's September judgment received widespread reaction at the time.

The ANC Youth League, the SA Communist Party and the Congress of SA Trade Unions questioned whether Zuma would have a fair trial in view of the judgment.

"Having breached the fundamental client and attorney confidentiality which constitutes an important element of a fair trial we therefore doubt if the [former] deputy president Jacob Zuma could ever get a fair trial," Youth league spokesman Zizi Kodwa said.

Cosatu said it had been "vindicated" by the ruling.

"This totally vindicates the decisions of the Congress of SA Trade Unions that Zuma cannot possibly have a fair trial," spokesman Paul Notyhawa said.

The Democratic Alliance said it would be "very unfortunate" if the judgment negatively impacted on the Zuma case.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Natal Witness.