Do Steinhoff's private interests trump the public interest in knowing exactly what happened in South Africa's biggest corporate fraud? That's the question at the heart of our case for access to the full Steinhoff forensic report.

During the Supreme Court of Appeal's (SCA) hearing of Steinhoff's appeal against the high court order that it disclose the investigative report into the company's collapse, Judge Pieter Meyer made a comment that neatly summarised the case. He said that had he been a shareholder, he would want to know what happened and not have to wait for Steinhoff to determine when and what information it would disclose.

So would we, Judge Meyer, so would we.

Soon after Steinhoff had published an "overview" of the report from PwC's forensic investigation in 2018, journalists from the Financial Mail and amaBhungane filed requests under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) for access to the report.

The investigation had been commissioned after Steinhoff's auditors, Deloitte, were unable to finalise the annual financial statements in December 2017, citing "accounting irregularities".

The report holds the key to understanding who had been involved in the fraud and who should have stopped it.

Judge Meyer and the other judges - Acting Judge President Zondi, and judges Schippers, Hughes and Tlaletsi - grilled Steinhoff's counsel, Andre Smalberger SC, on why Steinhoff refused to disclose the report.

They asked him why Steinhoff maintained that the report was...