African National Congress president Jacob Zuma's bid to prevent key documents from being used against him came to an end on Thursday when the Constitutional Court reserved judgment.

Zuma's legal team and that of French arms manufacturer Thint appealed a Supreme Court of Appeals judgment upholding controversial 2005 search and seizure raids.

They had also attempted to have ruled invalid a letter, authorised by Judge Phillip Levensohn, requesting documents from Mauritius.

The court heard four related applications by Zuma, his attorney Michael Hulley, Thint (Pty) Ltd and Thint Holdings Southern Africa for leave to appeal against three judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on November 8, 2007.

They objected to the searches carried out on their premises as part of an investigation against Zuma following the conviction of his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik on charges of fraud and corruption relating to the alleged bribing of Zuma for support and protection of Thint during the arms deal process.

Originally, only two days were set aside for the hearing but on Wednesday night Chief Justice Pius Langa ordered that the court reconvene on Thursday to finish proceedings.

In contrast to previous court appearances, which were marked by thunderous supportive singing, only the whirring of camera shutters aimed at Zuma could be heard for the first two days.

On Thursday, he stayed away from the court building leaving Pierre Moynot, Thint's chief executive, sitting alone behind their legal teams.

Zuma and Thint argued that the warrants allowing the searches, granted by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, were invalid because they were "overbroad" and vague, and did not list exactly what should be seized.

Zuma's lawyer Kemp J Kemp said on Thursday that all the state had to do was attach an affidavit which would tell those conducting the searches more about the investigation and which information to look for.

This would have prevented both the seizure of documents unrelated to the case and potential violations of privacy and lawyer/client privilege.

He said the warrants were so vague that even the people whose premises were searched on August 18 2005 would not know which documents were being sought.

Between 250 to 300 officials arrived at Zuma's homes in Johannesburg, his homestead in Nkandla and his offices, Hulley's office, and the home and offices of Moynot at 6.30am on the day of the search and seizure.

Kemp said that without the specific details, those being searched would also not have been able to point out and raise objections to the seizure of information or items that fell out of the scope of the warrant.

He said that in spite of a list of items noted on the warrant, the officials took only boxes of Zuma's financial records, which were transferred to Hulley when Shaik resigned as Zuma's financial adviser.

Earlier in the hearing, Thint lawyer Peter Hodes questioned why the arms company had been targeted for a search and seizure raid in the investigation against Zuma, saying it had already been summonsed and had handed over "massive amounts" of documents to the National Prosecuting Authority, including a diary they had sought.

He said the State had not made a case to the judge when asking for the warrants.

"The judge issuing a search warrant is not a rubber stamp, a case has to be made out for it," said Hodes.

Advocate Wim Trengove, arguing for the State told the court the June 2005 warrants satisfied the requirement of "objective delineation" and "went a lot further".

Citing from the warrant used by the Scorpions to search Zuma's flat in Killarney, Johannesburg, Trengove said that the documents "that have a bearing on the investigation" were detailed in an annexure attached to the warrant and that "the offences are listed in the warrant."

"When the applicant contends that the warrant was deficient, they must say that the [Supreme Court of Appeal] was wrong," said Trengove.

He went on to say that the state believed it had a good chance of convicting Zuma on corruption.

"We are sure that we have a case, not merely a prima facie case, but a case with a reasonable prospect of conviction."

Trengove said the difference between interpretations of the search warrants used in the searches, by the State on the one hand and Zuma, arms company Thint and Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley on the other, was "extremely narrow."

Following argument over the search and seizure raids, the State locked horns with Zuma and Thint's legal teams over the Mauritius documents.

The State obtained the letter of request from Levensohn after contending that the incorrect section of the International Co-operation in Criminal (ICC) Matters Act was used to obtain the letter.

The documents include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thales International's South African subsidiary Thint (Pty) Ltd.

It details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and convicted Durban businessman Schabir Shaik where the NPA alleges that an agreement on a R500,000 a year bribe for Zuma was reached.

Kemp submitted that the State did not need the documents for investigative purposes as it already had copies, which were "brought here (to South Africa) in an improper way."

Trengove contended that if the Levensohn's letter were ruled invalid, Zuma's August 4 trial could be further delayed by an application to the trial judge for his permission to obtain the documents.

Judge Hilary Squires accepted copies of the documents as evidence in Shaik's trial in 2005.

With acknowledgements to Giordano Stolley, Jenni O'Grady and Sapa.