All of it was very serious - but if we had watched it in a cinema, many of us might have thought that the movie makers had "gone Kafkaesque".

This week, Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president, and Thint, the local arm of the giant French arms manufacturer - each represented by a senior and junior counsel and an attorney - spent one and a half days in the Pietermaritzburg High Court trying to persuade Judge Phillip Levinsohn, the deputy judge president of KwaZulu-Natal, not to comply with a request by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) that he write to the Mauritian authorities asking them to release the originals of 13 documents.

Yet the NPA - represented in court by a senior and two junior counsel and two senior investigators - already has copies of the documents, one of which is a page or pages from a diary of Alain Thetard, a former Thint executive, allegedly relating to a meeting in Durban at which he, Schabir Shaik and Zuma were present.

In fact, copies of the documents were used in the successful prosecution on charges of corruption and fraud of Shaik in 2005, for which he was sentenced to 15 years' jail.

But Billy Downer SC, for the state, explained to Judge Levinsohn, when the state's case against Zuma and Thint on charges of corruption and fraud was struck off the roll by Judge Herbert Msimang, the judge said the state needed to do its homework properly before charging Zuma and Thint.

Getting hold of the originals was part of that exercise, Downer said.

What Downer did not say, but was clear from the hundreds of pages of affidavits and heads of argument that have been entered as part of this matter, was that it was Thales, Thint's parent company in Mauritius, that had been responsible for bringing the successful injunction in the Mauritian courts in 2001 to prevent the release of the documents - the very injunction about which the NPA was asking Judge Levinsohn to intercede on its behalf.

For this reason, it is clear that if Zuma and Thint are re-charged, they will argue that copies of the documents are inadmissible as evidence. It is also for this reason - though, again, Downer did not say so explicitly - that the state wants to have the originals in its possession.

This being the case, it was obviously clear, said Kemp J Kemp SC, Zuma's lead counsel, that the state was preparing to recharge Zuma and Thint.

If it was not preparing to re-charge Zuma and Thint, then the application asking Judge Levinsohn to write to the Mauritian authorities was a waste of the court's time.

And if the state was preparing to recharge Zuma and Thint, why did it not say so, asked Kemp.

But Downer, in his many responses during the one and a half days, would not say whether the state was planning to re-charge Zuma and Thint.

During his presentation on Thursday, and his summing up on Friday morning, Downer said the state had arranged for a commission of inquiry with the Mauritian authorities.

It was in preparation for such an inquiry that a search and seizure raid was carried out on the premises of Thales in Mauritius and copies of certain documents were made and sent back to South Africa.

"All sorts of conspiracy theories have been attributed to us about those copies," said Downer.

"We held a search and seizure raid during which certain documents, as defined by a judge's order, were seized and then copies of these were made - so that we could prepare questions. Soon after that all the documents were sealed following a court action by Thales."

Nirmal Singh SC, for Thint, said Judge Levinsohn should not assist the state in the matter because the NPA had not followed any of the correct methods for obtaining the copies of the documents that they already had and that its behaviour in the matter had not been acceptable practice.

Kemp said that in his view the proceedings were a waste of time because the injunction was the result of a legal action that had taken place in Mauritius.

Consequently, if the NPA wanted to have it lifted, it needed to go before the Mauritian courts and argue why it ought to be lifted.

Kemp said that a letter from a South African high court judge was going to be of academic interest in any case.

"If I understand you correctly, Mr Kemp," said Judge Levinsohn, "you are saying that a letter from me would be viewed as an artificial instrument by the Mauritians anyway."

"Yes, m'lud. We ought not to be here," replied Kemp.

The judge said it was clear he had "a lot to think about" and that he would deliver a judgment "in due course".

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Cape Argus.