It's now up to the Supreme Court of Appeal to decide if the Scorpions acted unlawfully in obtaining a warrant against former deputy president Jacob Zuma's attorney.

On Monday the Johannesburg High Court granted the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions leave to appeal against a judgment about the legality of warrants issued against Zuma's attorney, Julekha Mahomed.

High Court Judge Ismail Hussain said that it was best that the Supreme Court of Appeal hear the matter and make a ruling on a section of the National Prosecuting Authority Act that allowed the directorate to obtain a warrant to search an attorney's premises.

Mahomed had made an urgent application to have the searches and seizures of documents from her Johannesburg home and office declared unlawful.

She had stated that attorney-client privilege had been breached and that the seized documents had contained notes about Zuma's defence.

Earlier in October Hussain had found in Mahomed's favour. He had stated that the Directorate of Public Prosecutions' (DPP) failure to disclose to Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, who had signed the warrant, that Mahomed was a practising attorney violated the safeguards of the National Prosecuting Authority Act.

Hussain had found that the DPP document presented before Ngoepe had been written in a way that anyone reading it would believe that Mahomed was Zuma's legal adviser and not a practising attorney.

Hussain had made certain recommendations that should be followed when applying for a warrant to search an attorney's premises. He had pointed out that if it was an ex-parte application, as it was in Mahomed's case, the DPP had to provide information to the judge, including that the warrant related to an attorney.

But on Monday Hussain stated it would be best for a full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal to decide as they would have more time to apply their minds.

"In my judgment I attempted to set aside certain guidelines on how the matter should be carried out. I did so with little time at my disposal, so maybe it will be better if the Supreme Court of Appeal looked at the matter."

He also noted that the higher court might also disagree with his earlier judgment. Hussain said that costs would be granted with the outcome of the appeal.

Mahomed said that it was inevitable that the matter would be sent to the Supreme Court of Appeal. She pointed out that the delay in having her documents returned made preparation for Zuma's defence difficult.

National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Makhosini Nkosi said: "We welcome the decision to refer the matter to a higher court with more resources. We hold the view of the judge that the matter should be debated further," he said.

The National Directorate of Public Prosecutions and the Scorpions missed Monday's deadline to file papers opposing an application by Zuma and his lawyer for the return of their seized documents.

Zuma and attorney Michael Hulley launched the application in the Durban High Court earlier in October. Hulley confirmed that no papers had been received by late Monday afternoon.

"It's not catastrophic. I will follow it up and am confident that it will be sorted out," he said.

Zuma's application challenges the Scorpions' raids on his homes and offices, saying they had compromised his privacy and dignity.

In Hulley's case, it is contended that attorney/client privilege was violated.

With acknowledgements to Nalisha Kalideen, Tania Broughton and The Mercury.