The case concerns a judicial review on Mkhwebane's report on Ramaphosa's ANC presidential campaign funding.

The Public Protector investigated the president on allegations of misleading Parliament, the non-disclosure of financial donors, and suspicions of money-laundering.

Justice Keoagile Elias Matojane called attention to the Public Protector's changing of the wording of the Executive Ethics Code which legislates against "wilfully" misleading parliament to "deliberately".

The court set aside Mkhwebane's finding that the president misled Parliament as "fatally flawed" and said it warranted review and should be set aside.

Justice Matojane said, "there is no evidence that the president knew about the EFG2 account or the R500,000 donation from Gavin Watson at the time he answered Maimane's question. There is no evidence disputing this.

"It was totally irrational for the Public Protector to make a finding that President misled parliament based on the fact that he should not have answered the question until he determined the facts."

The courts further found that the public protector did not have jurisdiction to investigate the CR17 campaign and the president did not have a duty to disclose his contributors.

Justice Matojane said, "the Public Protector's finding that the president received direct personal financial benefit through the CR17 campaign is due to her conflation of the campaign and the president. There is no evidence that the president received any financial benefit from the campaign."

He said it is inexplicable how Mkhwebane made reference to state capture when the donors were private people.

The judge said she had no foundation in fact or law and said if she had been more diligent she would have come to a different conclusion.

Justice Matojane said Mkhwebane's finding of suspicion of money laundering on the part of Ramaphosa is unlawful and reckless. 

The court set the suspicion of the money-laundering finding aside.

News24 reports the court also set aside the finding that Ramaphosa violated the Executive Members Ethics Act by failing to declare the donations to Parliament, and it ruled that he had received no personal financial benefit and was not obliged to declare. 

The court found Mkhwebane displayed a "complete lack of basic knowledge of the law and its application" and further, in a scathing judgement, called some of her findings "unfathomable". 

Mkhwebane was also ordered to pay Ramaphosa's costs on a punitive scale.

eNCA