Jacob Zuma may have entered the Supreme Court of Appeal with a spring in his step, but he left it legally bruised and no longer certain of stalling the state's relentless digging into his financial affairs.

Three of the Bloemfontein court's senior judges yesterday led the charge against Zuma's counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, slamming him for "vague submissions" that they said had no basis in law.

Although it was the state appealing against an order that its raids on Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, were conducted with unlawful warrants, it was Kemp who ended up facing a marathon grilling.

Under almost unceasing questioning, a visibly flustered Kemp submitted that people being searched by officials must understand the search warrants used against them so that they could "physically resist" if their rights were being violated.

Commented Judge Robert Nugent: "I don't understand that proposition." Later he said: "The warrants should be clear to be able to be challenged in court."

Judges Nugent, Ian Farlam and Tom Cloete appeared unimpressed with Kemp's suggestions that the state might have taken privileged documents when it raided Hulley's offices - potentially resulting in any future case against Zuma being rendered a mistrial.

Pointing out that Hulley was an experienced criminal attorney, the judges questioned his claims - made to the Durban High Court - that he had not known he could refuse to hand over the documents because they might be privileged.

"I must say that I find that incredible," Judge Farlam said.

He, however, added that it was to Hulley's credit that he did not claim privilege when he was not sure exactly what documents were contained in the two boxes seized from his office.

Today the court was to hear an appeal by French arms company Thint against a Pretoria High Court ruling that the raids on its premises were in fact lawful.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton, Karyn Maughan and The Star.